are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
we read judge and hear only on one side think it a temptation to examin cry out we are satisfied already are not willing to be informed nor glad of light fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples c. If we be such men why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such and the People too to cry out away with such fellows from the Earth it is not fit they should live He asketh where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples If I should speak in his dialect I should answer in the arguments by us produced which he and all his party are not able to answer nor have ever answered but I had rather-dispute than scold He saith we may see light if we will We say we would see it if we could and think we could see it if it were to be seen He telleth us how easy this dispute is We assent and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth He chargeth us with willful mistake a mistake we deny and make the contrary of it appear but if it be a mistake that it is willful we also deny and though we cannot in this satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts who will one day judge us and our rash judgers Sect. 6. He contesteth page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook there is no need of insisting on such debates Brethren should study to understand one another and construe every thing to the best But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse pag. 72 73 74. which he hath but lightly or hardly at all touched He proceedeth pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists who objecteth that these who cannot conquer their scruples as to Communion with our Church must either return to the state of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers The Dr's Answer is that this is new Doctrine the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at Reply I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans that did both scruple and act as we do but I deny not that some did join with the Church but then their scruples and ours do differ They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient yet might be used we think them unlawful and not to be used There was also another difference they met with some indulgence and were suffered to Worship God with the Church and forbear the things that they scrupled We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these and therefore whatever they did we are under this unpleasing choice either to sin against God and our Consciences or to set up Separate Meetings or to return to the state of Paganism i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God. Sect. 7. It is objected that we scruple joining in the Sacraments and living under some of the Ministers He answereth that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation neither do I insist on it as I have before declared save where they Preach false Doctrine or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin And this scruple hath been often heard of It is too vulgar a way of reasoning it is a hard case if People must fly into separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be Pray who ever said so But the Dr. would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joining with others their separation be lawful This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge that scrupling can never make Separation lawful it is good ground for these scruples that must do that Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations might have been spared as wholly impertinent O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England he asketh what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present Separation Ans. There is in it that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising or other unlawful terms of Communion and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these He telleth us page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their scruples It is true neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account but withal he might have added that few setled Churches except that of Rome and that of England do tempt or rather force men to scruple and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion which they know many count unlawful What he saith ibid. for Papists Anabaptists and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating doth no way come up to our case Neither are their scruples built on good grounds nor are the things that they scruple known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation by shewing what scruples are to be allowed and what not Hath this never been done by Non-conformists Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences If these were attended to a stop might soon be put to Separation but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand and the Church will impose without cause on the other there is no putting a stop to Separations till the Lord cure our Distempers Rigour and Persecution if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party is one way to put a stop to Separation but it is none of Gods way and as it never had his approbation so it seldom hath had success Sect. 8. The Learned Author Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject to wit the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation and therefore might wave this whole debate But I think it is an abuse and therefore shall say a little on this Subject Here we have not any institution to guide us there being nothing in Scripture that I know of about Spoâ—sion for the party Baptized And therefore as on the one hand what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary should not be withstood so on the other what is beyond that should not be practised and far
same City they will readily go in the same road or if one take a gainer way as he thinketh then another yet they will not fall out about that Let us then all make the one thing needful our business let us mind serious and practical Religion and in Subordination to that let us mind the Conversion and Edification of the Souls of the people under our charge Let us set our selves against Immorality Ignorance which alas doth abound every where Atheistical and careless neglect of Religion Let us labour to awaken the people to mind how they shall be saved and put them in mind of the hazard of resting on out side Worship whither it be with or without the Ceremonies that we controvert about If we all have a true Idea of that Religion that we should labour to instill into the minds of people and have that impression if the weight and indispensable necessity of it that the Apostle expresseth 2 Cor. 5. 11. knowing therefore the terrour of the Lord we perswade men If we were one in this it would much contribute to oneness in things that are more remote from the essence and life of Religion But while we mind our own things which must needs be very different while one sort is for their Grandeur and Riches and Dominion and Ease and another is for his Ease and Applause among one sort of men While we are for keeping up a party for victory over them that we contend with and for maintaining our credit so as we are ashamed to change least we fall under the imputation of being once in a mistake I say while these different ends and motives are suffered to influence us we must be far from agreement about any thing that hath been the Subject of our Debates while Lusts war in our Members Wars and Fightings will be the product of them Ja. 4. 1. As this purging of our selves from bad things might conduce to the Churches peace so might a joynt endeavour on both sides to purge the Church from bad Men an Ignorant Scandalous Heady and Vnsober Ministry is a great let to peace God will not be at peace with the Church while such are countenanced and good men cannot with any satisfaction behold such Scandals to Religion and such effectual Instruments of the ruine of Souls continued in the Church Such Ministers are Make-bates in the Church While some effectual course is not taken to remove them the Church is like to have little peace either with God or in her self Let all then if they would see Religion flourish and the Church setled in peace contribute their endeavours to get the unsavoury Salt that hath long made us unpleasing to God cast out and to oppose the entrance of them into the Holy Function of the Ministery who are not in some tollerable measure such as the Apostle requireth and are not in a probable capacity by their life and doctrine and diligence to do good to Souls and let none countenance or plead for unfit persons either to be admitted into or kept in the Church Pity to mens Persons or Families being horrid cruelty when the ruine of Souls is the necessary consequent of such Acts When love to the Salvation of men beareth sway with us above zeal for a Party we will easily be prevailed with in this If this piece of Reformation be endeavoured all Ranks must put hand to it the people by discovering such where they are and not calling nor countenancing them when they want a guide to their Souls And Magistrates by endeavouring the regulating of such Laws as do in any wise open the door to such men to enter or protect them when they already are in places And Ministers in their station by rejecting such Candidates of the Ministry as are not duly qualified and censuring the immoralities of such as have made a shift to get into that Office notwithstanding of their notorious unworthiness In order to obtaining the Peace of the Church which we all prize and desire Reformation is also necessary peace and purity will not long be separated the one from the other personal reformation must not be wanting if it will give hope of Peace even from Enemies Prov. 16. 7. much more is it the way to be blessed with peace from our Friends without it there is no peace with God nor Man but such as is a Curse to them who have it 2 King. 9. 22. Isa. 32. 17 18. Church Reformation must also truly be endeavoured by us if we would have Church-peace it is no token for good when sinful Evils Images of Jealousie that provoke the Lord to jealousie are in the Church and yet all agree in these ways none lament them none reprove them none take care to keep their Garments clean of the Corruptions of the Time like those whom the Lord doth so highly commend Rev. 3. 3. If we expect peace we must be humbled before the Lord for our personal and publick Deviations and be ready to confess them before the World we must take Shame if we expect that he should favour and honour us See Ezek. 4â— 10 11. While we are fixed in evil ways and will not be convinced or so proud that we are ashamed to acknowledge that we have been out of the way God nor Man can make no peace with us Neither is this all but we must turn from our evil ways of whatever sort they be particularly while Church Grievances are continued while no effectual course is taken and that unanimously and with serious application to remove Scandals to satisfie the Consciences and quiet the Minds of such as are grived how can Attempts for Peace have any success I suppose it will not be denyed by sober and intelligent Men that there are faults in the Church tho' some do strangely Hyperbolize in declaiming of her perfection but they that are in that strain of whatever party they be do little understand the Scripture Patern and the Church-way that themselves own and do not compare the one with the other Non-residences Pluralities want of Parochial Discipline abuse of Excommunication making that which passeth for Church Discipline and censures to be more destructive to mens purses than to their vices and other such things are too grosly evil to be defended and too well known to be denyed or dissembled It were one good step toward peace if there might be a prospect of getting such Enormities done away and the affairs of the House of God managed in a way more like that of the Gospel It might also make for our Peace if all of us of both parties should put on a Spirit of meekness and rather lament what we cannot approve than reproach one another for such things An unsober and fierce Spirit hath too much appeared on both Hands our Zeal for and against the things controverted is no way proportioned to the things themselves Many have not a different degree of Zeal against the grossest parts of Popery from what
for they all stand on one bottom to wit that they are not instituted but more of this in its due place For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow His Reasons in their place we shall Consider What he saith of the Crossing the Baptized Party I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it wherefore I answer That tho' it be the Ministers Action yet it is the Parties or his Representatives passion and that Personal It cannot be done on my Person or my Child 's without my Consent and Submission as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me I am culpable in reference to that Superstition So it is in this case Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon I am wholly a stranger to and can pass no Judgment on it but if this be as he saith it is no way to be justified But he should not charge the party with this There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike And if we should trouble the world with such publick Resentments of the same kind of dealings and worse that we and our way have met with and Daily do meet with not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party but from Pulpits and the Press not by the baser Phamphelteers only but famous Authors witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery we might write Books abundance His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say in that he representeth us as Depravers Raillers Back-bâ—ters Inventors of Lyes and spreaders of false Rumors and that of the best deserving men if they but come short of pleasing our humour Sect. 38. The Dr. next p. 59. taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries which I shall not stay to Consider Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness that he complaineth he hath received Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man will applaud his severe strain And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him I know not but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so dispised and his VVriting Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust it is neither so Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text of the Dr's Sermon he now waveth as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity which I think might have passed as Forreign to this purpose Sect. 39. One of his Antagonists p. 71. chargeth him with changableness in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum about which he maketh Diverse Apologies A change in this Learned Man is too visible and if it had been to the better it had not been Culpable but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Church-way I shall not meddle in that matter at this time Especially a change being upon the matter acknowledged by himself p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over That he had Asserted in his Irenicum that if others cast them wholly out of Communion then is their Separation necessary which he would reconcile with what he here writeth p. 47. by shewing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England for saith he Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication which he confesseth publick defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under ipso facto by the Canons but that it layeth on no Obligation till duely Executed But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema All this is very little to the present purpose for if we be all ipso facto Excommunicated and if this Excommunication be most frequently as it is Executed against us and capias's issued out commonly against us and all this for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity as he calleth it by these means we are de facto put in such a Case as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them and therefore we must either live without Gods Ordinances or have them out of Communion with their Church Again he Alledgeth p. 75. that he could not mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determineth That in the case of our Church men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it Neither doth this help the Matter for if we think as we do that we are bound in Conscience not to submit to all the Orders of the Church some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God and if for this Opinion and suitable Practice to it we be so excommunicated as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church then we are cast wholly out of the Church and our Separation must be Lawful on the ground that of old he had laid down But pag. 76. He would in that case allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion but not to proceed to a positive Separation But if we make use of his Allowance the Church who is of another mind putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances What can we then do but either live without them or proceed to that which he is pleased to call a positive Separation We are not convinced that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad for all the Letters that he mentioneth of which in their place And it is a rash Assertion which he knoweth cannot be Tried pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the unlawfulness of the present Separation He our Author maketh good the saying Quod misere volumus id facile credimus any man that hath seen the Vniformity in almost all things that is between our mode of Worship and their's and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England The excellent
the World judge We are content to set aside all the Authority of men Ancient and Modern and to referr our debate simply to the Determination of Scripture But mens Authority is the Argument that the Dr. in this Book doth most insist upon I hope the Reader may by this time perceive whether the Dr. doth truly or faIsly Assign the Foundation of our Differences which I with him acknowledge to be unhappy Sect. 21. He saith p. 14. That in the English Reformation they proceeded more out of reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rule Here are two mistakes not to be passed in silence 1. The Ancientest Church had none of the Ceremonies they were neither in the Apostolick Church nor in that which was near it How ancient they were he will after give occasion to enquire So that England took for their pattern the Church that was much declined both in Antiquity and Purety 2. What can be more grosly false than to say that other Reformers made meer opposition to Popery with their rules Two things make the contrary evident 1. They did not reject all that Papists held as That there is one God c. 2. They rejected nothing of Popery but what they gave other reasons for than that the Papists held it to wit That it was contrary to Scripture or not instituted by Christ and so condemned in Scripture as vain Worship being a Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men We make Symbolizing with Papists or other Idolaters an Argument against the Ceremonies but we reject them not on that account only and so meer opposition to Popery is not the rule of our Reformation Sect. 22. He complaineth that Calvin and others did insinuate that the English Reformation was Imperfect Nay they openly mainâ—ained it and so do we He doth twice mis-represent Calvin's Words p. 14 15. That he had avowed in the Letter before-cited to the Protector That the best Rule of Reformation is to go as far from Popery as they could No such Words are to be found in that Letter nor any thing that will import so much He doth indeed press the removing of all Popish Ceremonies as having been abused to Idolatry and citeth Psal. 16. 4. Where David saith That he will not take up the names of idols in his mouthâ— but he neither maketh this the Rule nor the best Rule of Reformation He knew that Scripture and Institution which he had a little before-mentioned was the Rule and a far better Rule than that Tho' even that hath its use to direct us in Reformation of the Church Again he saith That Calvin yieldeth to this Moderation that such Ceremonies might be retained as were easie and fitted to the Capacity of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist His words are Adeoque Ceremonias ipsas ad usum captum esse accommodandas sed non minus constanter affirmo Videndum esse ne sub illo praetextu toleratur quicquam quod a Satana vel Antichristo profectum sit Here is no advice to retain any Humane Ceremonies but all of that sort fall under that Censure they being not from God and being Parts of Worship they are from Satan or Antichrist but he would have all the Externals of Worship so fitted to peoples capacity as that they do not hinder but rather help in the inward exercise of it And if Calvin did yield in that Infancy of the Reformation which I think he did not otherwise he could not blame the Imperfection of it That the Ceremonies might be retained it maketh nothing for perpetuating of them The Dr. saith They proceeded by this Rule of Moderation taking away all the Ceremonies that were of late Invention And he saith p. 14. That the Ceremonies retained were more ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church It had been fit to have removed all that were of Humane Invention for Antiquity can neither prejudice Christ's Instituâ—ions nor warrant Mens But it is not true that all the Ceremonies retained were so ancient as shall be made appear in due time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Kneelling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper Neither will it free our Ceremonies from being Popish that they were before the great Apostasy if it be made appear that they were with a considerable degree of the Apostasy yea and a part of it Sect. 23. He endeavoureth to free our Ceremonies from Popery because the Cross is used by Papists in the Scrutinies before Baptism we use it after Baptism and Kneeling is not strictly required by the Roman Church in the act of Receiving as appeareth by the Pope's sitting or a little leaning For the first What great difference doth it make whether Crossing be used before or after Baptism seeing it is not to be omitted but belongeth to that Sacrament as one of its Adjuncts Our quarrel with it is not that it is used after Baptism but that it is used being none of Christ's Institutions but of Man's Invention and abused in the Popish Administration of Baptism For the Second I hope he will not deny that Kneeling in the act of Receiving is the constant Practice and required among the Papists and That the Pope who to them is above the Laws of God should be exempted from the Laws of their Church is so insignificant an Argument against Kneeling being required by them that I wonder to see it used by so Learned a man. For his Plain Linen Garment only used instead of many of the Popish Vâ—stments which was used in the time of Jerom and Austin I deny that it is the only Vestment that they use as appropriated to Religion and religious Persons any who readâ—th the Book of Canons made Anno 1603. Can. 74. may see the contrary the Reverend Clergy there busying themselves to order the fashion of Cloaths that all of them should use But that the Surplice is as ancient as Hierom and Augustin I shall not now examine seeing it is too well known that many Abuses were crept into the Church sooner than their days the one flourishing in the end of the Fourth Century the other in the Fifth I see no cause why any man should stand amazed at the noise that is made against the mischief of these Impositions as he saith p. 16. seeing all that he hath said doâ—h not clear them from being Men's Devices in God's Worship and consequently vain Worship which is a burden to any Conscience that regardeth Christ's Authority more than that of Men. Sect. 24. He pretendeth Sect. 5. to give Reasons why the Ceremonies were retained by our Reformers tho' they were distasteful to some Protestants and like to prove the Occasions of future Contentions These Reasons are three 1. Out of a due reverence to Antiquity 2. To justifie the Reformation before Enemies in that we would not break with them for meer indifferent things 3. To
be evil and to have had its Rise in the decay of the Church let us bear the blame He saith the rejecting of the Ceremonies gave a great check to the Reformation in France and citeth for it Thuanus and Balduinus both Papists without pointing to their words or places where they may be found wherefore I look on what he saith as gratis dictum And if it were true it saith no more but that there were two in France that were fond of humane Ceremonies as there are many in England VVe have cause to bless the Lord that the Reformation in France was not checked but made very glorious Progress was owned by many great and small was sealed with the Blood of many Martyrs And that it was not universally received we may rationally impute to the supreme Power being against it which useth to have the Command of the Consciences of the greatest and carnal part of the world But what the Dr. saith in prosecuting this reason I wish he would reconcile with his Third Reason That England retained the Ceremonies to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches Sect. 27. His Second Reason is to manifest the Justice of the Reformation by letting Enemies see that we did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Ans. 1. Papists might have seen that if they would have opened their Eyes without our retaining any of their Ceremonies to wit That we brake with them on weighty points of Heresie and Idolatry and not for Ceremonies alone Ans. 2. When we had separated from their Church on such weighty Accounts we were not to retain any thing that they had corrupted the Worship of God by to please them neither could we retain those to shun breaking with them having already broken with them on other accounts Ans. 3. The Dr. taketh it for granted which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question between him and us to wit That the Ceremonies are meer indifferent things If he prove this he must carry the day What Advantage the Popish Bishops for all their Subtilty and Learning that he talketh of could have made of rejecting of these as well as the rest of humane Ceremonies I know not they had a large Field to expatiate in with the People by holding forth to them How many Usages of the ancient Church the Reformers had rejected that were in the Dr's sence meer indifferent things as Holy Water Cream Salt Spittle c. How little addition could the rejecting the Cross Surplice c. with the rest have made to their strength What he citeth out of P. Martyr is abundantly answered Sect. 10. for he speaketh not of Vestments used in but out of Worship about which he would not have such Contentions made at such a time but have them removed afterward The Dr. citeth his words Indefinitely Other Reformed Churches but the Author's words are Per multas Ecclesias nâ—n ab evangelio alienas I suppose he meaneth the Lutheran or rathe Greek Churches for P. Martyr well knew That in the rest of the Reformed Churches no such Vestments were used Sect. 28. Let us now hear his Third Reason to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches and he instanceth in the Lutheran Church Ans. 1. This Reason could not be used by the English Reformers because they would surely rather have imitated the Calvinist Churches with whom they agreed in Doctrine than the Lutheran Churches from whom they differ'd in considerable points of Doctrine if they had designed to symbolize with other Churches and had been influenced in their determination of this matter by that design sure they would have symbolized with the soundest Churches Ans. 2. Neither could this Reason have had any weight if they had used it seeing there were mâ—re Protestant Churches of a contrary Practice and therefore the Protestant Churches would have carried the rejection of the Ceremonies whether the notes had been ponderanda or numeranda Ans. 3. If our Reformers had design'd a Consent in Ceremonies with the Lutheran Churches why did they retain these and not the rest used among them which are most of them as little liable to Exception as those retained and are not by their multitude such a burden as those of the Papists I hope the Dr. when he considereth better will retract this Argument for there is no Reformed Church on earth that the Church of England sheweth any Consent with in her Ceremonies Ans. 4. I have elsewhere shewed from good Authority That the Lutheran Churches at first had no humane Ceremonies but what they now have crept into those Churches afterward as other Evils did which Luther did not authorise Sect. 29. He will not only have Lutherans but the chief among the Calvinists to be of his Opinion He citeth Calv. Ep. ad Sadol That he was for restoring the Ancient Face of the Church His words which I found not easily in that long Ep. are Vt instauretur vetusta illa ecclesiae facies quae primo ab hominibus indoctis non optimis deformata foedata postea a pontifice Romano ejus factione flagitio se lacerata prope deleta est It is evident that he is not speaking of Ceremonies only but mainly of the Doctrine of the Church that was in Controversie between him and the Cardinal Also that it is the Apostolick Church that he speaketh of whose Face he acknowledgeth to have been deformed before Antichrist came to an height He citeth also Calvin de vera Eccles. Reformatione ch 16. which Book I find not in the Catalogue of Calvin's Works only among his Tractatus Theolog. I find a Supplex exhortatio to the Emperour and Diet at Spire De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae which I have diligently lookt into and find no such Passage in it but much contending against Humane Ceremonies And he apologizeth for their casting them out by shewing Quod nihil vel primo digito attigimus nisiquod christus pro nihilo ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traditionibus pronunciat Wherefore if Calvin owne Symbolical Ceremonies as the Dr. alledgeth we must understand him of those of Divine Institution or charge him with Inconsistency with himself Oecolampadius saith he lookt on the Gesture in the Sacrament as indifferent so do we therefore we think Kneeling ought not to be imposed And when it is so imposed it loseth its Indifferency having a shew of Adoration of the Bread. I have not Bucer's Book and therefore say nothing to the citation out of him but that his Authority will not prove the Opinion of the Calvinist Churches that we debate about Sect. 31. Our Author after this Digression returneth to the Historical part of his discourse Sect. 6. He telleth us that in the beginning of Queâ—n Eliz. Reign the Exiles returned from abroad with secret dislike of the Ceremonies but the Act of Conformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoined there was no Separation some of them accepted of Preferment in
the 3d. Sort if there be no other cause of separating from him but that I think under correction of the more Wise and Learned that they should rather cede of their right with a Salvo than break the Peace and Unity of the Church or disoblige the Magistrate and therefore they ought to give their consent By this means their right that Christ hath given them is not alienated it being by them on that occasion Asserted and the Rending of the Church is prevented Sect. 15. Let us now hear what the Dr. will say to make good against us his charge of our separating on this Head. He saith They have a Legal Establishment and Law and Vsurpation are contraries Ans. Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of a Civil Office are contrary Also Establishment by the Gospel and Usurpation of a Church-Office are inconsistent but Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of an Office in the Church are very consistent one with another Because the Office of the Ministry is no institution of Man but of Christ and he giveth Laws to regulate that and other affairs in his House and hath not left these to be ordered by the Laws of men I thought the Dr. had been for Episcopal Government in the Church not for Erastianism Mr. B. is cited p. 134. asserting That all that come into the places of Ejected Ministers the people not consenting are Vsurpers that the Magistrate's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church without or before the Peoples consent nor will it always oblige the People to consent and forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismatical because they do it not For disproving of this the Dr. first leaveth it to others to judge of the dangerous Consequences of this an Act being passed by King and Parliament for removing of some Pastors and putting in others And I desire that these others who judge of this matter may consider that the ordering of the Ministerial Call and the fixing a Religion between Pastor and People do fall directly under the Cognizance and Laws of him who is the Head and Lawgiver in his Church even Jesus Christ and under the Laws of men only as the Civil Peace may be concerned therein and let them also consider that we by owning or disowning a Pastoral Relation which the Magistrate hath passed an Act for or against do manage our principle and order our practice with that peaceableness and caution that the Magistrate may as little as possible either know it or be offended at it and if we be Convicted of a Transgression of the Magistrate's Law we patiently suffer the Penalties Let them I say Consider these things and withal Consider that to differ from the Magistrate in Principle and Practice of Religion was the Lot of the Primitive Christians and then let them judge if they be Impartial Men whether any such dismal consequences as the Dr. insinuateth are like to follow Sect. 16. He objecteth next On those Grounds when Solomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadock is his room any part of the People might have pleaded they never consented to Zadock's coming in The Question is whether it belonged to the King or the People Ans. There is so little shadow of Reason or affinity to the question in Hand in this Argument that it is no small Derogation from the understanding of so Learned a Man once to mention it for the chusing of a High-Priest belonged neither to King nor People but the Succession was fixed in one Family by the Lord and it was neither in the Power of the King nor People to chuse any but the nearest Heir of that Lin◠Wherefore what Solomon did in this Case was no more but to inflict a Civil Punishment on Abiathar to wit Exile from Jerusalem where only the Office of High-Priest could be Exercised and Confinement to Anathoth And this was done for his Accession to Treason against Solomon And Solomon's putting Zadock in his place was no more but obeying the Commandment of God who had promised the Priest-hood to Phinehas whose nearest Heir Zadock was And it is the opinion of many Divines that Abiathar's right to the Priesthood was not so good as Zadock's Another Argument like the rest he hath p. 135. is That it follows that a smaller part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and chuse other Governours in opposition to those Established by Law and they may do it in one case as well as in another Which makes me wonder saith he at those who dare call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any men do enjoy their Estates This is a Confounding of things most disparate one from another a taking away all distinction of Civil and Church power We utterly deny his consequence That because people notwithstanding of an Act of Parliament may adhere to their Pastors therefore they may chuse other civil Governours for of these he must speak or speak nothing to the purpose They may not do it in the one case as in the other because the one case is regulated by Christ's Law the other by Mens Law. But I now smell out a mistake in the Dr. that maketh such Choler and Zeal against us That we count them Usurpers of their places that is their Benefices Let him no more fear that we own their Title to these to be as good as Men have to their Estates both being disposable by the same Law But all that we have said is about their Usurping the Charge of Souls Of which we Assert two things 1. That there is no necessary Connexion de facto between a good Title to the one and to the other though de jure I mean divino beneficium sequitur officium 2. That the same Law may give a Title to an Ecclesiastick Estate which giveth Title to other Estates but another Law and not that must give a Title to having the charge of Souls and must make a Relation between Pastor and People And the reason of this Difference I bring from that famous saying of Constantine the Great to the Church-men that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 17. He hath yet another Argument to wit That this overthroweth the Reformation for the Papists had the very same Plea that these Men have now to wit that the Magistrate had no Power to dissolve the Relation between them and their former Church-guides Ans. If the Dr. will say that the Popish Clergy had no otherwise forfeited their Title to the charge of Souls than by the Magistrates Law then their Plea and ours were the same But I suppose he as well as we will fix that forfeiture on another Foundation to wit their Heresy and Idolatry that they led the People into warranted the People to withdraw from them as none of Christ's Ministers and disobliged the People from owning any further Relation to them as their Pastors And this not only warranted
divided into Provinces If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country it will not prove that they were under his Charge Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them and all their Churches or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them and so that he was more than president in their meeting when they came together about the Affairs of the Church These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira and these of Maraeotis And 1. Epiphamus saith that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches especially those of Maraeotis Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them That this was an Act of Charity not of Episcopal Authority appeareth because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches not a part of Athanasiu's Church and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis which Athanasius saith were subject to him Next Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village Ans. Maraeotis or Mâ—ria as Ptolomy calleth it is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉 I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake which it seems had then few Churches and Christians and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline with these of Alexandria being very near to it their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator Subjâ—cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself because men have set up such Bishops but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops which is not done by such an Argument as this wherefore I deny the Drs third Consequence that he draweth from this passage p. 254. to wit That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belongeth to him There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meetâ—ng in Diverse Assemblies I meddle not with it is nothing against us whether it weâ—e so or otherwise Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth is out of Theodoret which he saith is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Poweâ— he saith he had the pâ—storal charge of 800. he should have said 80 Churches and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony but without cause for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ and which had been kept more intire in former Ages 2. It is much suspected by learned Men that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name as Leontius saith which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches but that he had been Pastor in them the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth 4. But whatever be in that this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power as to place or bounds but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop Sect. 7. Before I proceed I shall return to examine the Doctor 's Allegations for Diocesan Power p. 230. which I above referred to this place He asserteth That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it to wit That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place as Bishop and dischargeth the like to be done for the future Lucian saith that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and several Passages to this purpose To all which I. A. by denying the Consequence Cyprian as I cited above did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all But it was solely in them even so that the Presbyters especially that some of them as the Dr. himself states the Case might not do it without Cyprian doth not prove that the Presbyters and whole Church were under his Government It amounteth to no more but this that in a Presbytery regularly constituted especially where they have devolved the Power of calling and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed and constant Moderator it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline without the rest and particularly without Consulting him whom they have so chosen Beside I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far as afterward many did He was a holy and meek Man but such may be a little too high To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage that the Dr. citeth sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed in that not only some Presbyters took it on them without a regular Meeting of the whole but even Deacons medled with it which was out of their way His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church is wholly out of the way for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop proveth as little as the rest for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office which was not from the beginning Cyprians appointing some to visit when he could not do it by reason of Persecution neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their
will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act and another thing then private dealing with a person the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person in Preaching they are in more general Terms Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man I know not 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercisâ—d because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly and personally inflicted on Offenders and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn hic num without fault aâ—d where it is fâ—ulâ—ily forborn it doth nullifie the being of a Church yet it must not always be forborn His 2. answer is If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly and debar in that Case Reply why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick and the Law thus to clash especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubriâ—k are setled by Law And he doth by this fairly yield that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing parturiunt montes Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself Sect. 16. that the neglects and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed To this he hath several Answers The 1. is That the question is whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches this I pass for I think it doth not The 2. is It is easier to complain of this or separate then find out a way to remedy it We propose the Scripture remedy to wit to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common The 3. is That therâ— is not that necessity of Church Discipline as in the primitive times the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders and so to vindicate the honour of the Church And to confirm this he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tuâ—es petrus and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors as Augustine Theodoret c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus and his followers proving that the Church and Republick are distinct Societies tho made up of the same Persons that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World that the Rules Laws Punishments and immediate ends of Church-State are different Let him no more tell us of the Church of England but of the Civil Laws of England as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed and ordered by I shall not digress to refute this Assertion but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ and his Apostles who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs to Church-men and not to the Magistrate Sict 18. His Fourth Answer is that Excommunication by Protestant Divines is not left to a Parochial Church I do not plead for that but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that miâ—d It is false That among us a Minister I mean with his Elders can only admonish not repel from the Lords Supper Why saith he may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie â—he Bishop as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive Church was exercised by a single person If the Dr's principle be true I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace than either of both What he saith of the Affrican Churches is answered above Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery by the declining of him is meant declining of them The Inconveniences that he allegeth by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance to a meeting of Pastors But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship it could hardly be so ill managed and made so ridiculous and contemptible as it is now in the Hands of Bishops or rather their Servants in England It is well known how solemn and terrible it is as practiced which is seldom in Presbyterian Churches and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments as he doth against Parochial Discipline to wit That there are no certain Rules to proceed by no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication no method of Tryal no security against false â—itnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals besides multitudes of other Inconveniences Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church without a Book of Canons such reflections on the Word of God are very unbecoming a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer But he might have considered if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible and if he have not his Will must be his Law why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery respective take the help of them He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile would prove more Tyranical than any Bishops Court. It may be so if managed by bad men but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates as the Bishops Courts for these we medle not with His fifth Answer I say nothing against Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline even supposing every one left to their own Consciences as to their
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
always observed in the days of Cloâ—harius in France which of them he meaâ—eâ—h I know not there were three of that Name the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after now if the Infancy of this usage was so late and it grew by degrees the adult State of it must be as indeed it is a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts. Sect. 19. 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State there was either greater reason than before or any reason for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church as to take it out of the peoples Hand That there was no greater reason then before I prove both because he cannot shew us such reason and also because before this there were Tumults and Confusions which might require the Magistrates interposition and also because the Christian Emperours had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms No difference in this can be assigned either from any grant of Christ to the one more then to the other nor from sound reason That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason is none at all to wit The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally For 1. Did not the Emperours so too Coâ—stantin's liberality was exceâ—ding great which occasioned that saying hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Priviledges from them that Christ had granted them to more than Jacobs Pottages was for Esâ—us's Birth-right It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine and only fit for Simon Magus that the Liberality of Princes or others to the Church can entitle them to be Masters of her priviledges As there is no more reason now then before so there neither was nor is any reason at all why Magistraâ—es should mâ—dle with the Election of Church Officers because it is the peoples right by Christ's Institution and hath been owned by the Church and the Magistrate for many Ages as hath been shewed above Sect. 20. The Dr. saith that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used these priviledges in Election of Church-men of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people but to be enlarged This he insisteth much upon afâ—erward alledging that the people of England by their representatives in Parliament have given away their power of Elecâ—ion and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates Bishops and other Patrons A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right it was Christ's Legacy to them and not alienable by them It doth concern their Souls not their temporal Estates and such concerns are not at Mens disposal 2. I deny that this was done people never gave away this Right it was partly by violence and partly by Fraud wrested out of their Hands what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away wherein the People are represented is a mistake for the people are represented in Parliament as they are Members of the Body Politick and they instrust all their worldly Interests and Lives and Estates to them whom they chuse and they may dispose of these by making Laws to secure them and also to take them away when the publick good doth so require but they are not there represented as they are Members of the Church neither do they or can they entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls or the Church Rights and Priviledges These Christ hath made Laws about and no Man can make Laws about them all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial not Magisterial as Acts of Parliament are it is to declare Christ's Laws and to put them in Execution and Christ hath not entrusted Kings nor Parliaments with these Affairs but only his Ministers and the people can entrust no other with them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's on which all of it is built is his confounding of Church and State with Erastus which is to mingle Heaven and Earth Sect. 21. He saith The Princes obtained by degrees not only the Conâ—irmation of the Election bâ—t the Liberty of Nomination with a shadow of Election by the Clâ—rgy and others of the Court as appears by the formula of Marculphus Answ. Here is plain dealing both to let us see what fraâ—dulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right by leaving a Shadow of Election when the substance was taken away and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Priviledge that they behoved by such Policies to wind themselves into And further that it is so grosly evil that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church but must thus hide the shame of this practice if they have a good Title why leave they a shadow of Election If not why do they assume the substance of it He ciâ—eth on the Margin in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings several Acts of Couâ—cils as Concil Aurelian An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause for Can. 3. which I suppose is that he aimeth at dâ—th barely name the King whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth so far as the peace of the State is concerned in tâ—em but expresly requireth the Election of the Clergy and People and again their consent and moreover maketh this Election a clero plebe to be as it is written in the Antient Canons Concil Aurelan 2. Can. 7. doth also expresly mention popular Eâ—ection and Concil Aurelâ—an 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent And Concil Aurelian 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordâ—ined in his Church to which he was Elected decreto that was the ordinary Term for the Writing wherein the peoples Election was conâ—ained And in all these Canons there is not one word of the Magistrate except in the first as abovesaid His Concil Tarracoâ— I cannot find Concil Tolet. 12. that he citeth was in the end of the seventh Century when Corruptions were come to a great height and it was but provincial it saith indeed quoscunque pâ—testas regia â—lâ—gerit but the peoples Election is not exluded tho not mentioned and there is an express salvo it is the 6th Can. for the liberty of the Provinces which cannot well be understood but of the priviledge of the people of the Province Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests between the Papal and Regal power and how the latter prevailed in England and citeth several Acts of Parliament as of Edward 6th and others Aâ—sw What doth all this prove If two contend about a Third Persons Estate and the one prevail against the other doâ—h that give him a Title We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about and
Rozary of the Virgin Mary it is alledged that St. Dominiâ—us had it revealed by the Virgin her self that this form of Service was most acceptable to her and it is added That she was fittest to chuse what way she would be Worshipped I hope they and such as Symbolize with them in ordering of the Worship of God will give us leave to say the same of her Blessed Son. 4. For the matter of Worship I think it will not be questioned whether that mâ—st be appointed by God or not otherwise the five Popish Sacraments that they have added to Christs wo could not be condemned and men might make anâ— kind of Action as Dancing Walking Leaping to be religious worship And even the Frame Composure or mode of Divine Worship should have Divine Warrant otherwise it is not Acceptable to God. The Lord hath appointed in his House as Acts of his Worship Reading Scripture Preaching Praying Praising Baptism and the Lords Supper and the Service that we offer up to him in our Assemblies should be an orderly performance of these But when Men devise a Frame of Service which is none of these distinctly and orderly performed but all of them confusedly jumbled together and some modes of their own added to them This Mode or Frame of divine worship the Lord hath not warranted there is no example of it in Scripture nor in the purest and first times of the Gospel and therefore we ought not to worship God in such a manner I hope it will not be asserted by our Brethren that it is in the power of the Church to cast the divine Offices as they speak into what Frame or Mould they will to make it look like a Theatrical Show if they like that way and think some carnal minds will be taken with it and if this be granted then it followeth that there may be a Frame of Worship unlawful as to the manner of it which it may be a Sin for people to join in I do not say that the order of religious Acts in the publick Assemblies is fixed so as we may not begin either with a Psalm or Prayer or Exhortation c. but there is an order to be observed and there may be a sinful swerving from it which we are obliged to shun Sect. 9. The last thing to be proved is That the Liturgy now under debate is unwarranted and that it is unlawful to join in worshipping God by it For this I bring five Reasons 1. The Ordinance of God for reading the word in the Assembles of his people is by this Service much perverted for the Scripture is read in a very corrupt Translation following the vulgar Latin Translation as the Papists do as may be shewed in many instances where the Sense of the Hebrew or Greek Text is either contradicted or distorted Additions are made to the Scripture as the 5th 6th and 7th verses of Psal. 14. are not in the Hebrew Many Chapters of the Bible are never read in the Church at all and instead of them humane Writings Yea which contain fabulous things as Ecclesiasticus 44. Judith 9. Tobit 5. much more also of Apocripha is read as the Word of God. Yea with justling out the Word of God. This we judge a depraving of God's Ordinance These Apocriphical writings tho they be not said to be divine Scripture yet they are so placed with it and in its stead and no hint given of their humane Original that the people cannot but look on them as Scripture yea wise men have ground to judge that they were so look'd on by the first contrivers of that Frame of Service I mean the Papists Some Scriptures are so read as the reading of them with express reference to such occasion as they are in the Book appropriate to is an abusing and mis-applying of them as on the Festivity of Michael the Archangel is read Rev. 12. 7. as if Michael that fought with the Dragon were not Christ but a created Angel. 2. It hath a great and scandalous appearance of superstition if superstition it self can be separated from its use in appropriating Scriptures to be read to days not only ordinary days but such as they without warrant have separated from other days and made Holy and restraining Ministers from reading such portions of Scripture to the people as suit the present case of them or of the Church also the appointing one piece to be said in the Desk another at the Altar one with the Ministers Face to the people another with his Face to the East and his Back toward the People the many changes of postures sitting standing kneeling bowing c. we cannot perswade our selves that such a Mode of worship is appointed by Christ Was ever practised in the purer times of the Church or is acceptable to God. Sect. 10. The Frame or Composure of it is unwarranted unprecedented in Scripture and the purer Antiquity and unsuitable to so holy an Action as is Gospel Worship as appeareth in the jumbling of Prayer and reading Scripture together so many short Collects two or three Lines and then reading then another â—crape of Prayer and then of Scripture also the Responds tossing the Service between Minister and People and the Clerk and Minister the mutual Salutations the Letany of Hethenish Original like O Baal hear us reiterated so often and other repeating of the same things so often as is nauseous to serious worshippers of God We dare not worship God in a way that is so unlike to any worship that we read of among his people and that is so Theatrical and Pompous 4. Several passages in it are not sound others have a great appearance of unsoundness and others are unwarrantable There is a Prayer that We with this our Brother the Man to be Buried and all our Brethren departed may have perfect Consummation Where the Dead are prayed for and it is supposed that every one that dyeth is Saved The words have that appearance they pray to be kept from all deadly Sin. It hath an hew at least of approving the distinction of Mortal and Venial Sins They pray to be delivered from several dangers and Afflictions which there is no more reason to mention in Prayer than there is of other things that are ordinary Sect. 11. 5. It is a Symbolizing with Idolaters in our manner of worshipping God which the Scripture condemneth Deut. 12. 30 31. I hope it will not be denyed by our Brethren that the Papists are Idolaters and that this Service is a Symbolizing with them is too evident which may appear 1. If we consider the Manner and Frame of this Service and compare it with the Mass It is true they differ in that this is in English that in Latin and that some parts of the Mass are left out but otherwise they are as like to one another as one thing can be to another and this was not denyed by our Reformers who professed that their design in retaining this Service was to
Church declareth that this is not commanded out of an Opinion that such kneeling c. is antecedently pleasing to GOD nor that this their Command is unalterable nor binding to all nor that the things commanded are unalterable and so binding but only the Church judgeth this decent and fit to adorn the other parts of Worship I say in this case this bowing should be innocent Ceremony and no Act of false Worship which I think will hardly go down with the greatest Ceremony-Mongers And in a word let us but receive this one Principle that there is no false Worship without such Opinion as he mentioneth and men may do what they will and the Church impose what she will in the Worship of GOD provided they keep a right Opinion about the nature of these things so that it is no more our concern to look to Scripture that we may learn how to order the external Worship of GOD but to look to our Opinion that it be not faulty And by this means there are few of the Ceremonies that ever Papists or Heathens used but a Church sound in the Faith and in opinion about Superstition might bring them into the Worship of GOD which is to open the door for Ceremonial Worship a little too wide in the opinion of most sound Divines Sect. 7. Another Exception I make against the Dr. Two ways how an Act becometh superstitious is let them especially the first of them be applyed to our Ceremonies and I doubt not but even what himself hath said might condemn them for however the pliable People that use the Ceremonies because commanded by the Church and see no antecedent necessity or goodness in them may by this means be acquitted from Superstition the Church that imposeth them cannot be so innocent for either the Church must have reason for this Imposition or none but sic volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione Voluntas The Latter I hope the Dr. will not say lest by purging his Church of Superstition he make her guilty of as great a Crime to wit being Lords over GOD's Heritage and Church-Tyrants If he say the Former this Reason must be that these things are needful that they please GOD No say our Adversaries the Churches Reason for imposing them is She thinketh them decent and edifying But doth she not think this Decency and that Edification that is by them to be antecedently pleasing to GOD and needful for the Church If she do not she acteth by meer will if she do she is guilty of a superstitious opinion in supposing uninstituted things in VVorship to be pleasing to GOD antecedentally to a humane Law for if the use of them be pleasing to God so must the things out of which that usefulness doth result And indeed it may abundantly appear to the Conviction of all unbyassed Men what opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies our Bishops have when they appoint them by their Canons impose them with Rigour and Severity punish the Neglect of them with such Violence and when they force them upon the Consciences of them who agree with themselves in all things else and when they make such distractions and divisions in the Church rather than lay aside these things Can any man of common sense whose reason is not fetter'd by Prejudice and Interest judge that men who act so have no opinion of the antecedent Goodness of the Ceremonies or that they do not think them pleasing to God He that thinketh otherwise can think what he will. Sect. 8. I come now to examine what the Dâ— saith in defence of these Two things which he requireth to make an uncommanded Act in Worship to be superstitious The 1st is That it be supposed to be necessary and pleasing to God and the omission of it unpleasing to God antecedently to a humane Law. All the proof that he bringeth of what he saith is that the Observations that Christ condemned in the Pharisees had no other evil in them nor were condemned on any other account but because of this Opinion that they had about them as Grocius observeth that Touching any thing unclean by Law did communicate uncleanness to Soul and Body and that Washing did cleanse both on which supposition they thought this Washing pleasing to God. Three things I here reply before I come to answer the Drs. Proofs of this his Allegation 1. All this is nothing to our purpose unless it can be made appear that Christ condemneth only their erroneous Opinion and not theâ—â— Practise or that they might Lawfully have added these Religious observations to these that the Lord had appointed in his Law provided they had no opinon of the antecedent necessity of the things which is so far from being proved that the Contrary is evident for our Lord doth expresly Condemn the observing of these things Mark 7. 8. Ye hold the Tradition of men as the Washing of Pots and Cups and many other such things do ye Their Doing not their Thinking only is condemned Will any man say that if any of the Pharisees should have laid aside that Opinion that the Dr. imputeth to them and look'd on these observations as of no necessity antecedent to the Tradition of the Elders and yet observed them Carefully and Religiously that such a one had sufficiently complyed with Christ's Doctrine no surely for the Controversy between the Disciples and Pharisees was not about Thinking but about Doing the Disciples not only were not of their Opinion but abstained from their Practice Sect. 9. It is evident from Galat. 4. 9 10. that the Apostle condemneth the observation of the old Jewish Ceremonies though it is clear that he is mainly disputeing against their opinion of Justification by works and these among other works yet this doth not hinder the practice of these abstracted from that opinion to be evil it being expresly condemned wherefore it is not enough that our practice in Gods Worship be not built on a bad opinion but it self must have warrant from God. 2. Christ in that debate is mainly dealing with the Imposers of these Ceremonies the Pharisees who continued that Yoak on the People that their Ancestors had laid on them and therefore it is no wonder that he took notice of a perverse opinion in them which moved them so to impose on the People whereas the people that obeyed might be moved only by the authority of their Guides hence he calleth them their Traditions because they continued them and put new life in them by their Authority The parallel then still holdeth between our Case and theirs as they behoved to have some undue esteem of these washings that made them Impose them with the same yea more Zeal than that with which they enjoyned the Ordinances of God so there must be in our Church-Guides some apprehension of Good in the Ceremonies more than is meet that maketh them not only intermix them with Divine Worship but impose them with equal if not superiour Zeal with the
The Dr. is pleased Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus and counts opposing it a blow at the Church If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony he should have answered what is of purpose learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken and twelve arguments against it by another hand and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A. But this Ceremony being imposed by the Church as one of the terms of her Communion which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it I shall a little consider it by proposing our scruples against the use of it and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it But we must first consider the true state of the controversy which is not whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name whereby that Blessed Person or either of the other Persons of the God-head are designed to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty whom Saints and Angels Worship Yea nor thirdly whether it be in it self and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling as bowing or lifting up the eyes when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names All these we readily yield And our Brethren on the other hand grant that no Worship direct or indirect mediate nor immediate such as Papists give to their Images is due to the Name i. e. the Word 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service it is not there restricted to the Lessons and the Creed as the Dr. alledgeth page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeths Sermons are also taken in a general clause when otherwise in the Church mentioned carrieth it to all acts of Worship which the Dr. without ground would limit to wit when they are not imployed in any other act of Devotion 3. They make it no natural but instituted piece of Worship the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful never pleadeth for the necessity of it and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church It is true some of them plead Scripture for it to wit Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty as naturally necessary as praying and believing But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this The question then is 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence by bowing the head or knee or otherwise when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands To both our Brethren answer affirmatively and we answer negatively Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship Ergo it is unlawful The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of Mens Traditions in his Worship as vain on this account that they are the Commands of Men Math. 15. 9. Mark 7. 7. of which before And I think the Doctor will not deny it who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant page 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts to wit that this Act is uncommanded and that it an Act of Worship For the First Few of our Brethren alledge a Command for it for then it should not be indifferent as they make it and they that plead a Command found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way injoin any such Rite For first the Greek Text is plain not at but in the Name of JESUS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words For the plain sense is that subjection to his Dignity and Power shall be yielded by all Creatures 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service but must either prove this a duty at all times when this Name is uttered or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling and I know not that it is in the Churches Power where the Lord commandeth kneeling to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be injoined so is confessing with the Tongue ver 11. What power hath the Church to pick and chuse Scripture-Commandments to injoin one and neglect another of equal Authority But why do I stay on this many Episcopal men and even some Papists look on this Text as nothing to the purpose in hand for the Second Part of the Antecedent that this Bowing is an Act of Worship I hope that will not be denyed it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ and the stating of it in Divine Service and appropriating it to that doth constrain men to look so upon it Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service Ergo It is not acceptable Service The Consequence I hope will not be denyed The Antecedent I prove because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word rather than at the mention of these other Names by which God Father Son and Holy Ghost or our Blessed Redeemer are called It is not enough that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST and therefore must either prove the Church faulty in not instituting Worship to all these names or they prove nothing at all 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony between this name and others that are equally holy therefore they must either give a reason why adoration is fit in this case rather than in the other cases or they do not reach the Question The Reasons given by the learned Hooker Eccles. polic lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent to wit 1. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him is not warrantable He hath appointed ways for it and not left them to our devising 2. He saith It maketh much against the Arians who deny his God head Answer 1. His way of convincing gain-sayers is by the Word we must not devise ways of our own to convince Hereticks Moses and the Prophets being God's way are more powerful to convince than if one were sent from the dead
it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated motive to Worship And after if men sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship yet how shall we excuse our own adorations Sure the application of all this to the present Controversy is not so hard to be understood but that a man whose wit is not a wool-gathering may see these are not the words of a delirious man. He doth not charge the Church of England with using Images but with using the sound of a word to the same purpose with the lower use that Papists ascribe to Images and inferreth that if the one be a sin so is the other and the one may as lawfully be done as the other The adorations he speaketh of are worshipping God by the help of the sound of that word as a motivum cultus and therefore there is no need of proving that ye Worship any other beside God before ye need excuse your adorations The Dr. confesseth page 361. that their Church never denied that men sin in making Images a stated motive of Worship Hence Mr. A. inferreth that their Church sinneth in making the sound of a word a stated motive of Worship but this the Dr. is not pleased to take notice of But when Mr. A. asserteth that they may bring in Images with equal reason the Dr. denieth that we may worship Images on the same reason that we perform external adoration to Jesus at the mention of his Name still he will not take notice wherein the parallel and consequently the strength of the reason lieth to wit in making Images a motive of worship and making a word such but the Dr. parallelleth making Images the object of Worship and making the word Jesus the occasion only of it which is to seek subterfuges not to stand to the argument insisted on Sect. 33. Mr. A. giveth a difference between the tolling of a Bell to call People to Church and the word Jesus occasioning our bowing that the one is out of worship the other in it when we should be intent on devotion In answering this the Dr. saith They contend not for the seasonableness of this bowing when they are in other acts of devotion and immediate application to God but about the lawfulness of it in repeating the Lessons or the Creed Reply 1. I have before shewed that this is not the sense of the Church which injoineth it in time of Divine Service which I hope taketh in prayer yea when ever that Name is mentioned in the Church wherefore the Dr. must be sore put to it when he must defend the Church by contradicting her and setting up his private opinion that he is forced upon against her Authentick and publick Records 2. Here are two distinctions hinted equally useless to this design The first is he pleadeth not for the seasonableness but for the lawfulness of this usage but if it be unseasonable even at these times that he will have it used then it is also unlawful seeing duties acceptable to God must be done in their season 3. The other distinction is it is not to be done in acts of devotion and immediate application to God but in the Lessons and Creed I desire to know whether hearing the Word read and hearing the Articles of our Faith rehearsed in a solemn manner while we are about Worshipping God be not acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God as well as prayer which he seemeth to understand by that expression The word read as well as preached Heb. 4. 2. should be mixed with Faith and so should the hearing the Articles of our Faith and is not Faith in its exercise Devotion and an immediate Application to God At least it cannot be denied that serious exercise of the whole Soul is requisite in these exercises as well as in that which he will call Devotion and therefore it must be as unseasonable to be diverted by waiting for the fall of a Word in the one exercise as in the other 4. The Dr. taketh no notice of the main strength of Mr. A's reason to wit that the toll of the Bell is out of Worship the sound of the Word in it The one is in statu Civili or Communi the other in statu Religioso For I hope he will not deny these exercises in which this bowing is to be used to be Religious acts He saith it signifieth nothing to this purpose whether persons be in the Church or out of if when the Bell rings for in the same page he Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell which ringeth in Worship and if the object of their Worship were right it would make him better understand the parallel Reply It is a rash assertion to say there is no difference between the Bell ringing when People are in the Church and when they are out of it he must mean when they are in the act of Worship and when not otherwise what he saith is impertinent for the one is motivum Cultus and in status Religioso the other not It is true Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell in the next page but he parallelleth it with the sound of the VVord Jesus both being a stated motive of Worship and therefore that is mentioned by the Dr. to no purpose Sect. 34. He saith when it is said in the Injunctions that we must bow at mentioning the Name Jesus in divine Service or when it is otherwise in the Church pronounced Yet saith he by the manner of shewing this reverence viz. with lowliness of courtesy and uncovering the heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other act of devotion Answer By this way of commenting he may easily make the Church say whatever he pleaseth for this is to contradict the Text by his Commentary Let him tell us when is that Name pronounced in the Church and yet People at no other act of Devotion This manner of reverence required proveth nothing for it is no wonder to hear them speak inconsistencies in requiring low courtesy and uncovering of the head in time of Devotion when the head is already uncovered who injoin the same in the Church out of that Devotion when that VVord is mentioned tho' heads be already uncovered as all must be in time of Divine Service by Can. 18. the same that injoineth this Bowing He saith it giveth no interruption to Devotion But doth it give none to other parts of Worship which he is not pleased to call Devotion He will still have it lawful as long as the object of Worship is true the mention of this Name only expresseth the time as the Bell doth of going to Church Answer It will then follow that if Papists will only Worship God not the Image and use it only as a stated motive of Worship that were lawful too But he considereth not that the manner and mean of Worship may be sinful when the object to which it is directed is true and that this is so is
by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto and not restored untill he repent and publickly revoke these his wicked Errours The Dr. hath a subtile distinction here between but affirm which term Mr. B. had used and affirm One would think that affirm and no more added to it signifieth no more than but affirm But the Dr. saith that affirm signifieth these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve Excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism I know not I am sure his citation out of Augustine that a man is born with till he find an accuser or obstinately defend his opinion saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable being asked why he doth not Conform shall say he cannot do it with a good conscience he falleth under the plain letter of this Law and goeth against the express words of it and this is the least that a modest man can say unless he will say I will not do it and that will be called obstinacy and so bring him under the Law in the Dr's own sense But if the man as a modest man may give reasons for his Non-conformity when men require him to Conform every word he saith will bring him under this Excommunication Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea is pag. 368 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists that such an excommunication is but a commination and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past applying it to him and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves by withdrawing from the Church I shall not contend about this though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth were rather ipso Jure than ipso Facto and that excommunication ipso Facto bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed But to let that pass this excommunication declareth what we are to expect and the frequent yea general execution of it putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported sure such excommunication and the fact which we neither deny nor are ashamed of are enough to loose our tie that we had to the Church Sect. 4. He answereth a question Can these be called Schismaticks who are first excommunicated by the Church He saith they may in two cases 1. When there is just cause for the sentence Reply I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismaticks but to call men Schismaticks for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out seemeth to be such a figure as when men are called Fugitives who are justly banished but I will not contend about words If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth make nothing for that none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion imposing mens devises in the Worship of God and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them His second case in which excommunicates are Schismaticks is if they set up New Churches which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned Reply He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust else this case were coincident with the former And in that case I distinguish his assertion The unjust excommunication is either for an alledged personal fault or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false Again it is either past against one or few or it is against a great multitude a considerable part of a Church or Nation If it be for an alledged personal fault where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned I do not say that such may set up new Churches It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine Worship or Discipline but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle falsly called errour and it also reacheth a great part of the Church Ministers and People I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves let men call it setting up of new Churches or what they will. For 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation or near so many should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God for the Caprice of some ambitious Church-men who excommunicate them because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case the Orthodox had been Schismaticks when they were excommunicated by the Arians and set up New Churches 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances because of their love to the purity of them What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes not for any thing of their Faith for he bids them keep the true Faith without Separate meetings Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth in the end of page 371. and forward to consider another Plea made for separation to wit scruple of Conscience which I think none do make the sole ground of separation but they have a ground for their scruple If that ground be good it will warrant the scruple and the separation too if not it can do neither And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea distinct from what I have already defended I suppose the Author that mention it intend no more than I say only they may rationally maintain that a scruple not sufficiently warranted in a person otherwise sober and sound about a matter indifferent or not intollerably evil tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant nor a Casuist but of somewhat else that I shall not name For when it had been pleaded that these scruples are great of long standing not to be removed without very over-powering impressions on mens minds He answereth by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries that a little impartiality and consideration would do it but that
upon Episcopacy which we do not and he no doubt doth it upon Misinformation But it is observable that this good man whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side doth as much blame the Church as us whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies that occasion Separation which he insisteth much on as the way to peace A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with is That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters a little after His Majesties Restauration nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians the contrary of which and their great Condescendency for Peace is known to all England and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity is the Book called A Petition for Peace containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed while the Prelatical Party would not part with yea nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony or mode of their Service Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude who walketh by the same Spirit and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague Monsieur de l' Angle He speaketh of Episcopacy as tollerable that one may with a good Conscience live under it This is not our Question but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause He telleth us they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops so do we He doth highly commend Love and Concord And we think it cannot be overvalued where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages both by Episcopacy and Parity and of disadvantages by both when managed by bad men Nothing of which do we contradict He complains of Extreams on both sides we do the same We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate as they should be After a proof of Independency he comes to speak of Presbyterians with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry this we refuse not He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart but stateth it on this ground page 445. as if we did Separate because the publick assembles are held under Episcopal Government and that we think our presence there were an approving of it which is wide from our case but no doubt is according to his information for which we â—hank our Episcopal Brethren and commend their ingenuity To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them which is far from our thoughts These Principles he doth most solidly refute He saith page 447. that he cannot believe that any of â—us Presbyterians look on their Episcopal Discipline or Ceremonies as blots and capital errours that hinder a man from Salvation And doth in this truly judge for we have always disowned such sentiments we judge them sinful evils which we dare not own but have much charity to some who own them He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation and when the dispute is about Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block and nothing in comparison of communion they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ better than themselves O that this advice were followed how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude or his Colleague touched our controversy Alas good Men they are abused by mis-representations Their Letters give just ground to think that if they were made Umpires between the two parties Prelatical and Presbyterian and heard the true state of our debate and true matters of fact they would be of the same mind with us And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side or at least to say nothing against them may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary Monsieur l' Arrogie who having writ a Book wherein he sheweth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome which all know to be Presbyterian with that of the Primitive Church And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle touching the Letters of Ignatius and the Apostolical Constitutions against Mr. Pearson and Beverige and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him at the request of some that favoured â—piscopacy he did not finish his answer These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants Ministers and others who do not Conform to the Church of England the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great Gosple Duty of charity At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies nor English Liturgy Since I wrote this I have met with another instance of Episcopal ingeâ—uity for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart dated Nov. 2d 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three poâ—itions whereof the third is a gross calumny and excellently disproved by Bochart and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him the position is Reges posse vi armis a subditis cogi in ordinem si se praebeant immorigeros de soliis deturbare in carcerem câ—njici siâ—â—i in jus carnificem deniqne capite plecti and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter as it is Printed after his Phaleg and Canaan from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford 1681. FINIS
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How