14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of church-Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of church-Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
this tast let the Reader Iudge what Ingenuity I am to expect from this Man The Last who appeared against my Sermon is called the Author of the Christian Temper I was glad to find an Adversary pretending to that having found so little of it in the Answers of Mr. B. and Mr. A. His business is To commit the Rector of Sutton with the Dean of St. Paul's which was enough to make the Common People imagine this was some busie Justice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian Temper which the Author pretends to For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with in a Book written twenty years since with great tenderness towards the Dissenters before the Law 's were Establish'd As though as Mr Cotton once answered in a like case there were no weighty Argument to be found but what might be gather'd from the weakness or unwariness of my Expressions And Have you not very well requited the Author of that Book for the tenderness and pitty he had for you and the concernment he then expressed to have brought you iâ— upon easier terms than were since required And Hath he now deserved this at your hands to have them all thrown in his face and to be thus upbraided with his former kindness Is this your Ingenuity your Gratitude your Christian Temper Are you afraid of having too many Friends that you thus use those whom you once took to be such Methinks herein you appear very Self-denying but I cannot take you to be any of the Wisest Men upon Earth When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and farther consideration those Divines of the Assembly who then opposed Separation should change their Opinions Will you not allow one single Person who happen'd to Write about these matters when he was very young in twenty years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his life to see reason to alter his Iudgment But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the Point of Separation which is the present business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon Which will appear by these particulars in it 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such practises which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are New Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from that form they separate from 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undeterâ—in'd by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governors of the Church Allow but these Three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Why then do you make such a stir about other passages in that Book and take so little notice of these which are most pertinent and material Was it not possible for you to espy them when you ransacked every Corner of that Book to find out some thing which might seem to make to your purpose And yet the very first passage you quote is within two Leaves of these and Two passages more you soon after quote are within a Page of them and another in the very same Page and so many up and down so very near them that it is impossible you should not see and consider them Yes he hath at last found something very near them for he quotes the very Pages where they are And he saith he will do me no wrong for I do distinguish he confesses between Non-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practises in a Church and entering into distinct Societies for Worship This is doing me some right however although he doth not fully set down my meaning But he urges another passage in the same place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But Will not this equally hold against our Church if it Excommunicates those who cannot conform I Answer 1. Our Church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites For it allows them to Communicate in other parts of Worship as appeared by all the Non-conformists of former times who constantly joyned in Prayers and other Acts of Worship although they scrupled some particular Ceremonies 2. The case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others Separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of this Church For that is all which can be inferred from the Canons For in the former case it is not a lesser Excommunication denounced as it is only in our case against Publick and scandalous Offenders which is no more than is allowed in all Churches and is generally supposed to lay no obligation till it be duly executed though it be latae sententiae ipso facto but in the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema so as to pronounce us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to and continue in their Communion and this was it which that Author meant by being wholly cast out of Communion i. e. with the greatest and highest Church Censure 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Although therefore he might allow a scrupulous forbearance of some Acts of Communion as to some suspected Rites yet upon the Principles there asserted he could never allow Mens proceedings to a Positive Separation from the Communion of our Church And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Pauls But if any thing in the following Treatise be found different from the sense of that Book I do intreat them to allow me that which I heartily wish to them viz. that in Twenty years time we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts as to see reason to change our opinion of some things and I wish I had not Cause to add of some Persons too There is one thing more which this Author
as to the Sign of the Cross as it is used in our Church notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament and I know not what but of this at large in the following Treatise 2 I see no ground for the Peoples separation from other Acts of Communion on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act as the Cross in Baptism is not and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper as is in the Rubrick after the Communion 3 Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a freedom in joyning in full Communion with us which may be done either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross or if that may give offence to others by confining the use of it to the publick administration of Baptism or by leaving it indifferent as the Parents desire it As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper since some Posture is necessary and many devout People scruple any other and the Primitive Church did in antient times receive it in the Posture of Adoration there is no Reason to take this away even in Parochial Churches provided that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it with the least offence to others and rather standing than sitting because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other And as to Cathedral Churches there is no necessity of alteration But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism viz. the Use of God-fathers and God-mothers excluding the Parents Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples either by permitting the Parents to joyn with the Sponsors or by the Parents publickly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism or which seems most agreeable to Reason that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part representing the Child and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors These things being allowed I see no obstruction remaining as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us in all Acts of Divine Worship and Christian Communion as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful 2. But because there are many of those who are become zealous Protestants and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine although they cannot joyn with us in Worship because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies and the right constitution of our Churches their case deserves some consideration whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us To their Case I answer First That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us and in the end Popery as I have shewed already and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration Secondly If any present Favours be granted to such in consideration of our circumstances and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists for a general Toleration for if ever the Papists obtain it it must be under their Name if I say such favour be thought fit to be shewed them it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches by their declaring that our Churches are no true Churches that our Manner of Worship is unlawful and that our Church-Government is Antichristian and that on these accounts they separate from us and worship God by themselves But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted I humbly offer these things to consideration 1. That none be permitted to enjoy the priviledge of it who do not declare that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations 2. That all who enjoy it besides taking the Test against Popery do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith because the pretence of this Liberty is joyning with us in Points of Faith and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them 3. That all such as enjoy it must declare the particular Congregations they are of and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose that so this may be no pretence for idle loose and profane persons never going to any Church at all 4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties if they use any bitter or reproachful words either in Sermons or Writings against the established Constitution of our Churches because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences and the using this liberty will discover it is not Conscience but a turbulent factions humour which makes them separate from our Communion 5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches lest meer covetousness tempt Men to run among them and no persons so indulged be capable of any publick Office It not being reasonable that such should be trusted with Government who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful 6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which ought to be duly collected for the Vse of the Poor and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it 7. That the Bishops as Visitors appointed by Law have an exact Account given to them of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations with their Qualities and Places of Abode and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion by giving satisfaction to their scruples This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law 8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
us From whence there are these things to be considered by us which may be of some use in our following Discourse 1. That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it This I have proved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse that those who deny it may with the help of the same Metaphysicks deny That the Sun shines 2. That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Vnion of the Church to go as far as they were able This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists but by the most rigid Separatists of former times and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful and thought so to be by the persons who Separate is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age but what new Reasons they have for it besides Noise and Clamour I am yet to seek 3. That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled provided that they have used the best means for a right information 4. That where occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them For say they to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn seemeth to be a most unjust Separation 5. That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and downright Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren Sect. 16. From all this it appears that the present practice of Separation can never be justified by the old Non-conformists Principles nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former is clear from undeniable Evidence and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries For although they endeavour all they can to blind the Readers Judgment with finding out the disparity of some circumstances which was never denied yet not one of them can deny that it was their Judgment That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was Vnlawful and Schismatical And this was the point for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon and it still stands good against them For their resolution of the case doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches which must have equal force at all times although there happen a great variety as to some circumstances For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded as to one circumstance or another the general case as to Separation is the same whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation on their Account it comes at last to the same point Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations as the Dissenting Brethren did because of some Scruples of Conscience in them and is it not equally unlawful in others who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead although they relate to different things I will put this case as plain as possible to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience one of them pleads that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy another saith His People do not scruple that but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross or Kneeling at the Communion a third saith If all these were away yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted as to matter and form they must have a Congregation of their own a fourth goes yet farther and saith Let their Congregation be constituted how it will if they allow Infant-Baptism they can never joyn with them nor saith a fifth can we as long as you allow Preaching by set forms and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses and such like Human Inventions Here are now very different scruples of Conscience but Doth the nature of the case vary according to the bare difference of the Scruples One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit is Separation on that account lawful No say all other Parties against the Quakers because their scruples are unreasonable But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism No say the Presbyterians and Independents that is an unreasonable Scruple Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship No saith the Presbyterians this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation and if they can joyn occasionally with us they are bound to do it constantly or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei and not from the meer error or mistake of Conscience But at last the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England and if they do not either they must desire a separate Congregation on the account of their Scruples as to the Ceremonies and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Vnreasonable as they do those of the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers Or else they declare They can joyn occasionally in Communion with our Church but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them with respect to our Church as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren with respect to themselves For no disparity as to other Circumstances can alter the nature of this Case viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what denomination soever the persons pass For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances but in the nature of the Act because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful As will fully appear by the following Discourse Those Men therefore speak most
II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers One would think that their warning had been fair but Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam The Lord have Mercy upon us 2. When the matter is throughly examined the difference between the Teachers and the old Separatists will be found not near so great as is pretended For what matter is it as to the nature of Separation whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or Vnlawful whether the Ministery of our Church be called a False Ministery or Insufficient Scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments which the old Separatists used only they are disguised under another appearance and put into a more fashionable dress As will be manifest by Particulars 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministry of our Church Sect. 4. I. Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons as Members of our Church to be unlawful For Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church And in the same Book he saith It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the Transient Sign of the Cross or for want of Godfathers c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who Separate in these things are not For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers which they take to be no small sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them And what is this but formal Separation But for all this Mr. B. may hold that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical for he saith it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practises and Persons if those be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them But here Mr. B. saith There is a necessity of departure and to joyn with other Pastors and therefore he must hold a formal Separation And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church that was never done by the greatest Separatists For they all held Communion in Faith with it And even Brown the Head of the old Separatists thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship and others thought they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion but not in Acts of Church Communion others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers though not in others and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful they must hold a necessity of Separation or that persons may be good Christians and yet be no Members of any Church For if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours If they declare themselves Members of another Church they own as plain a Separation as the old Separatists ever did if they do not and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members then they are Members of no Church at all So that if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they must either be Separatists or no good Christians upon their own Principles For saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country this were to exchange visible Christianity for visible at least Negative Paganism Now that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they are more forward to declare than I could have imagined In my Sermon I mentioned some passages wherein it seemed clear to me that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me some declaring in express terms That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches and of joyning to other Congregations And others saying That such a Concession viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful taken in their own sense will neither do them any harm nor us any service For as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 1. Many of them declare so and many declare otherwise And it 's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it 2. They dâ—clare Communion lawful but. Dâ— they declare Total Communion lawful The same Persons will tell us that both these Propositions are â—â—ue Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of Worship is so in others not And 3. Thâ—y will further tell us That Communion with some Parish chuâ—ches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines Preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together 1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful and that must be understood of any kind of Communion for the Second sort from whom they are distinguishâ—d hold total Communion unlawful and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's and the New-England way and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists 2. Those that do hold Communion lawful do it with so many restrictions and limitations that in practice it amounts to little more than the other For First It is only with some Churches and those it seems must be such as do not hold to our Constitution for he
Therefore this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so but till these are brought forth which never yet were or ever will be they must bear the blame of the Schism if they Separate on these accounts Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches rather than Communion with them which I have discover'd to be of that Nature as leads Men to the greatest Separation Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously and so need the less pains to discover their minds and those are II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful But there is a difference among these For First Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers but not in the Liturgy or any proper Act of Church-Communion This I have shewed was the Opinion of Robinson and the New-England Churches and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye who Wrote a Discourse about it and answered all Objections Yea he goes so far as to own the publick preaching as a great blessing to the Nation and he thinks the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent as they have liberty and opportunity the more publick and National Ministry But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People to be of another opinion which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them and he was a very sagacious Man Secondly Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship And some are arrived to that height that one of my Answerers confesseth That they refuse to hear him because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches It seems then they not only think it unlawful to hear us but to hear those who think it lawful and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry and our Ministers Antichristian which Mr. Nye was so far from owning that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian because the Articles of our Religion to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions are Orthodox and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down the State of the present Controversie as to Separation from our Communion will soon appear And any one may now discern 1. That I do not mean bare local Separation For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No I do assure him provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings as having a purer way of worship and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too who after his trifling manner talks of a bellum Parochiale as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it 2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine not determin'd by our Church upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it And I wonder who ever did But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination went no farther thâ—n the Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatcht but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty art made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism 3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live This is to Answer Mr. B's Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches and publick and private administrations of Sacraments But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner that they may go off the better with the common people And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes But what is all this to the purpose If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London than he wears in the Countrey Is he not the same Man for all that Are not David's Psalms the same whether they be Sung or Said Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune or as set by a Parish Clerk That which only looks like Argument and my business is to mind nothing else possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing That I say which looks like Argument is That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation This proceeds upon a mistake for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules suppose there are some different Customs among us What is this to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches To the choosing of new Pastors and sitting down as he speaks with purer Administrations All which this Man owns in his Book as their avowed Principles and Practices and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church with the different Modes of Worship among our selves He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner 4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches but have certain priviledges allowed them as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came But what have
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
26 Canon which saith that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which he mentions as an abortive thing published by Iohn Fox which last any one that hath seen them knows to be a mistake nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt yet not so destroyed but with some diligence he might have seen it but it was for nothing of this kind that Book underwent so severe a censure as Mr. B. insinuates but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons which I think are plain in this case But Mr. B. saith this is not the lesser excommunication but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth this is certain the Minister is impowred is required to doe this the question then is whether this be not such a Censure of the Church as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister I grant this is not the lesser excommunication according to the Vse of this Church for that supposeth the sentence passed and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person upon extraordinary occasions But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication as appears by several passages in S. Augustin produced by Spalatensis to this purpose viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament Which is very true of the greater Excommunication but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders whereby they were suspended from full Communion but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given These were said to be in the state of Penitents It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion others onely on their death-beds others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance of which those were left to be Iudges who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of Church-communion but he saith the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull being still Candidates as he calls them so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion but not wholly cast out of the Church because the Christians might as freely converse with these as with any but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries But there was no question wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion there was a Power of Discipline because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged but in so governing the Members of the Church that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion it is thereby evident that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him I answer 1. What need this publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself is not this sufficient I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion he advised them to withdraw themselves from it till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences and then they might come to it Here is no publick Admonition by name and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders and yet the Church be a true Church and Christians obliged to communicate with it as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion But my design is onely to speak to this case so far as the Church is concerned in it Sect. 16. If it be said that notwithstanding this the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed I answer 1. That is not our question but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny And what other abuses have crept in ought in an orderly way to be reformed and no good man will deny his assistance in it 2. It is far easier to separate or complain for want of Discipline than to find out a due way to restore it No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it than Mr. Baxter hath done especially in that it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least 3. The case of our Churches now is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times For the great Reason of Discipline is not that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled for to assert that were Donatism but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as
he denies the Supposition viz. that there is any such agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship he denies the first consequence and as though that were not sufficient he denies the remoter consequence too And what Argument can stand before a man of such prowesse in disputing 1. He denies an Agreement in Doctrine which I have already shewed was allowed by all Dissenters before him from the days of R. Brown to Mr. A. But we must not mistake him for as fierce as he seems to be at first yet let him but have scope to shew some tricks of Wit and trials of his skill in fencing and he is as tame and yielding as you would wish him for at last he confesses they generally agree with the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles and but for meer shame he would have said all for I never heard of one before him made any scruple of it And this is the Doctrine established in this Church and if there be an Agreement in this then this Supposition is granted 2. As to substantial parts of Worship he denies an Agreement in this too although Dr. O. saith we are agreed in the substantial parts of Religion and I hope the parts of Worship are allowed to be some of them But he pretends not to know what we mean by the difference between the parts of Worship making some substantial and others circumstantial and then he offers to prove that our Church appoints new substantial parts of Worship and therefore he must know one from the other and after he hath spent some leaves in the proof of that at last he fairly concludes that there is a difference at least in a circumstantial part of Worship But because this is a weighty charge against our Church I shall take the more pains to consider it because the main objection against our Ceremonies lies under it and that which most sticks with the more sober Nonconformists Mr. A. 's charge about a substantial part of Worship being appointed by our Church is thus drawn up An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship Now this he chargeth our Church with but gives no instance but the sign of the Cross after baptism is that which he means which Mr. B. calls the transient dedicating Image of the Cross. For the clearing of this it will be necessary to shew 1. What we mean by a substantial part of Worship 2. How it appears that the sign of the Cross is made no substantial part of Worship by our Church 1. What we meanâ—â—y a substantial part of divine Worship For I have observed that the want of a clear and distinct notion of this hath been one of the greatest occasions of the Scruples of the most conscientious Non-conformists For being afraid of displeasing God by using any other parts of Worship than himself hath appointed and looking on our Ceremonies as real parts of divine Worship upon this reason they have thought themselves obliged in conscience at least to forbear the use of them The great principle they went upon was this that whatever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a real and substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was necessary to make a part of Worship their answer was that Divine Institution did not make that a part of Worship which was none but that to be a part of true Worship which otherwise would be a part of false Worship In the mean time they did not deny the lawfulness of the application of common circumstances to Acts of Religious Worship as Time and Place c. but the annexing any other Rites or Ceremonies to proper Acts of Religious Worship as the sign of the Cross to Baptism they supposed to be the making new substantial parts of Divine Worship and therefore forbidden by all those places of Scripture which imply the Scripture it self to be a perfect Rule of Worship This as far as I can gather is the strongest Plea of the Non-conformists side which I have represented with its full advantage because my design is if possible not so much to confute as to convince our Dissenting Brethren Let us then seriously consider this matter and if we can find out a plain discernible difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and mere accidental appendices this discovery may tend more to disentangle scrupulous minds than the multiplying of arguments to prove the lawfulness of our Ceremonies And that we may better understand where the difficulty lies these following things are agreed on both sides 1. That besides proper Acts of Worship there are some Circumstances which may be differently used without setting up new parts of Worship As for instance Adoration is a substantial and proper Act of Divine Worship but whether that Adoration be performed by prostration or by bowing or by kneeling is in it self indifferent and no man will say that he that makes his adoration kneeling makes another new part of Worship from what he doth who performs it standing or falling on his face And so if the Ancient Eastern Church did at certain times forbid kneeling in acts of Adoration this doth not prove that they differ'd in point of Adoration from the Western Church which requires kneeling in the same Offices of Divine Worship because they agreed in the act of Adoration but onely differ'd in the manner of expressing it 2. That Divine Institution makes those to be necessary parts of Worship which of themselves are not so As is plain in the Sacraments of the New Testament which of themselves are no necessary substantial parts of the worship of God but onely become so by being appointed by Christ. So under the Law many things meerly ritual and ceremonial in themselves yet by vertue of Divine appointment became substantial parts of Divine Worship 3. That for men to make new Parts of Divine Worship is unlawfull For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no fault and consequently that our Saviour without cause found fault with the Scribes and Pharisees for their Traditions 4. That there are many things which may be done in the Worship of God which are not forbidden to be done unless they be Parts of Divine Worship For if the supposed reason of their prohibition be their being made Parts of Divine Worship if it be made appear that they are not so then it follows they are not forbidden 5. That what is neither forbidden directly nor by consequence is lawfull and may be practised in the Worship of God For although Mr. A. quarrels with me for saying they require express Commands to make things lawfull in the Worship of God yet he allows that what is not required either directly or by consequence is unlawfull and by parity of Reason what
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
up to a persecution of them There had been some color for this if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon and never intend to read it and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it They resolved to condemn it and therefore would see nothing that might have alter'd their Sentence It is enough it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters Noâ—e are so incapable of Conviction as those who presently determine what a thing must be without considering what it is Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before great Generals Which is just as reasonable as to suppose that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon it self for their own satisfaction But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present It seems they soon heard enough of it by the Noise and Clamor they made about it Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists for us to quarrel among our selves Would to God this advantage had never been given them And Woe be to them by whom these offences come And what must we do Must we stand still with open Arms and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us Must we suffer our selves to be run down with a Popular fury raised by Reviling Books and Pamphlets and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication lest the Papists should overhear us Which is as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny for fear the Enemy should take notice and make some advantage of it But which will be the greater advantage to him to see it spread and increase or care taken in time to suppress it If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active and busie than formerly if they had not both by publick Writings and secret Insinuations gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church and the Members of it so disingenuously as they have done there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon But when those things were notorious to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then or now to defend it is in effect to tell us they may say and do what they will against us at all seasons but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable Which under favor seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side for it is like setting us in the Pillory for them to throw dirt at us without allowing us any means to defend our Selves But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it But Wherein doth it lie Not in raking into old Sores or looking back to the proceedings of former times Not in exposing the particular faults of some Men and laying them to the charge of the whole Party Not in sharp and provoking reflections on Mens Persons All these I purposely and with care declined My design being not to exasperate any but to perswade and argue them into a better disposition to Union by laying open the common danger we are in and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists by another that indeed I do not bespeak for them Gibbets Whipping-posts and Dungeons nor directly any thing grievous to their flesh but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them in respect of their Everlasting State God forbid that I should Iudge any one among them as to their present sincerity or final condition to their own Master they must stand or fall but my business was to consider the nature and tendency of their Actions My Iudgment being that a causless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it and herein having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern Would they have had me represented that as no sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it or Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessen'd their sense of it No I had seen too much of this already and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men otherwise scrupulous and conscientious that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin as if there neither were nor could be any such thing unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation Which is so mean so jejune so narrow a Notion of Schism so much short of that Care of the Churches Peace which Châ—ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfy'd with it unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings And that I confess is a shrew'd temptation But so far as I can judge as far as the Obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism â—each and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace which is as far as is possible and as much as lies in us Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it is directly the Sin of Schism or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church And this is not to be determined by Mens fancies and present apprehensions which they call the Dictates of Conscience but upon plain and evident grounds manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion than joyn in the practice of such things We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome than they have against ours and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them if we had no better grounds to proceed upon than they
up Scholars or to teach Gentlemens Sons University Learning because this may be justly looked on as a design to propagate Schism to Posterity and to lay a Foundation for the disturbance of future Generations II. As to the Case of the ejected Mininisters I have these things to offer 1. That bare subscription of the Thirty six Articles concerning doctrinal Points be not allowed as sufficient to qualifie any man for a Living or any Church-preferment for these Reasons First Any Lay-man upon these Terms may not only be capable of a Living but may take upon him to Administer the Sacraments which was never allowed in any well constituted Church in the Christian World And such an allowance among us in stead of setling and uniting us will immediately bring things into great confusion and give mighty advantage to the Papists against our Church And we have reason to fear a Design of this Nature under a pretence of Union of Protestants tends to the subversion of this Church and throwing all things into confusion which at last will end in Popery Secondly This will bring a Faction into the Church which will more endanger it than external opposition For such Men will come in triumphantly having beaten down three of the Thirty nine Articles and being in legal possession of their Places will be ready to dâ—fie and contemn those who submitted to the rest and to glory in their Conquests and draw Followers after them as the victorious Confessors against Prelacy and Ceremonies And can they imagin those of the Church of England will see the Reputation of the Church or their own to suffer so much and not appear in their own Vindication Things are not come to that pass nor will they suddenly be that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause We do heartily and sincerely desire Union with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it If any Expedient can be found out for the ease of other Mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it But if the Design be to bring them in as a Faction to bridle and controll the Episcopal Power by setting up forty Bishops in a Diocese against one if it be for them to trample upon the Church of England and not to submit to its Order and Government upon fair and moderate terms let them not call this a Design of Union but the giving Law to a Party to oppose the Church of England And what the success of this will be let wise Men judge Thirdly If a subcription to Thirty six Articles were sufficient by the Statute 13 El. c. 12. I do not understand how by virtue of that Statute a Man is bound publickly to read the Thirty nine Articles in the Church and the Testimonial of his Subscription on pain of being deprived ipso facto if he do not For the L. Ch. I. Coke faith That subscription to the 39 Articles is required by force of of the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. c. 12. And he adds That the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto and that a conditional subscription to them was not sufficient was resolved by all the Judges in England But how a Man should be deprived ipso facto for not subscribing and Reading the 39 Articles as appears by the Cases mentioned in Coke and yet be required onely to subscribe to 36 by the same Statute is a thing too hard for me to conceive 2. But notwithstanding this if any temper can be found out as to the manner of Subscription that may give ease to the scruples of our Brethren and secure the Peace of the Church the desired Union may be attained without that apparent danger of increasing the Factions among us And this I suppose may be done by an absolute subscription to all those Articles which concern the Doctrine of the true Christian Faith and the Use of the Sacraments and a solemn Promise under their hand or Subscription of Peaceable submission as to the rest so as not to oppose or contradict them either in Preaching or Writing upon the same penalty as if they had not subscribed to the 36. Which may be a more probable means to keep the Church in quiet than forceing a more rigorous subscription upon them or leaving them at their full liberty 3. As to the other subscription required 1. Jac. to the 3 Articles The first is provided for by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy The third is the same with the subscription to the 39 Articles And as to the second about the Book of Common Prayer c. It ought to be considered 1 Whether for the satisfaction of the scrupulous some more doubtful and obscure passages may not yet be explained or amended Whether the New Translation of the Psalms were not fitter to be used at least in Parochial Churches Whether portions of Canonical Scripture were not better put in stead of Apocrypha Lessons Whether the Rubrick about Salvation of Infants might not be restored to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so the present exceptions against it be removed Whether those expressions which suppose the strict exercise of Discipline in Burying the Dead were not better left at liberty in our present Case Such a Review made by Wise and Peaceable Men not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far from being a dishonour to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it 2 Upon such a Review whether it be not great Reason that all Persons who Officiate in the Church be not only tied to a constant Use of it in all Publick Offices as often as they administer them which they ought in Person frequently to do but to declare at their first entrance upon a Parochial Charge their approbation of the Use of it after their own Reading of it that so the People may not suspect them to carry on a factious Design under an outward pretence of Conformity to the Rules of the Church they live in 3 Whether such a solemn Using the Liturgy and approbation and promise of the Use of it may not be sufficient in stead of the late Form of declaring their Assent and Consent which hath been so much scrupled by our Brethren These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union and which I suppose may be granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church There are other things very desireable towards the happiness and flourishing of this Church as the exercise of Discipline in Parochial Churches in a due subordination to
Reformation he declares That he did mightily approve a Certain Form from which Men ought not to vary both to prevent the inconveniencies which some Mens folly would betray them to in the free way of Praying and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be shewing some new things Let Mr. Br. now Judge Whether it were likely that the Controversie then at Frankford was as he saith between them that were for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free way of Praying when Calvin to whom the Dissenters appealed was so much in his Judgment against the latter And it appears by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done and he expresses his satisfaction that the matter was so composed among them when by Dr. Cox his means the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before he mentions Lights as required by the Book which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth So that either they deceived him who sent him the Abstract or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself the matter being ended contrary to his expectation For although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter the Order of Geneva had like to have been presently voted in yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service they were fain to compromise the matter and to make use of a Mixt Form for the present But Dr. Cox and others coming thither from England and misliking these Alterations declared That they were for having the Face of an English Church there and so they began the Letany next Sunday which put Knox into so great a Rage that in stead of pursuing his Text which was directly contrary he made it his business to lay open the nakedness of our Church as far as his Wit and Ill Will would carry him He charged the Service-Book with Superstition Impurity and Imperfection and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation want of Discipline with the business of Hooper allowing Pluralities all the ill things he could think on When Cox and his Party with whom at this time was our excellent Iewel were admitted among them they presently forbad Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor in a Book by him Published he was forced to leave the City and to retire to Geneva whither most of his Party followed him And thus saith Grindal in his Letter to Bishop Ridley The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox and others which met there for that purpose Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works that this Controversie was not carried with them out of England but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time as particularly Hooper who lived many years in Switzerland brought home with them a great liking of the Churches Model where they had lived which being such as their Country would bear they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplicity being far enough from any thing of Pomp or Ceremony which created in them an aversion to the Ornaments and Vestments here used So now upon this new Persecution those who had Friendship at Geneva as Knox and Whittingham or were otherwise much obliged by those of that way as the other English were who came first to Frankford were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Divine Service than of our own And when Men are once engaged in Parties and several Interests it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in especially when they have great Abettors and such whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them This is the True Foundation of those Unhappy Differences which have so long continued among us about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church For when Calvin and some others found that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation our Bishops proceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rules they did not cease by Letters and other wayes to insinuate that our Reformation was imperfect as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained So they called the Vse of those Ceremonies which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church Calvin in his Letter to the Protector Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation To go as far from Popery as they could and therefore what Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Popery were to be removed lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby but at last he yields to this moderation in the case That such Ceremonies might be reteined as were easie and fitted to the Capacities of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery Now by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed for it took away all those Ceremonies which were of late invention As in Baptism of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church it reserved in the Second Liturgy only the Cross after Baptism which was not so used in the Roman Church for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism and the Anointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it in stead of these our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism being of Uncontroulable Antiquity and not used till the Child is Baptized In the Eucharist in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome our Church hath only appointed Kneeling I say appointed for although Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventures time or after the fashion of Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation lest it should seem to recede from the Practise of Antiquity which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants In stead of the great number of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church it only retained a plain Linnen Garment which was unquestionably used in the times of St. Hierome and St. Augustin And lastly As to the Episcopal Habits they are retained only as
a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black These are now the Ceremonies about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church and any sober considering Man free from Passion and Prejudice would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church and is at this day about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask is Why were these few retained by our Reformers which were then distastful to some Protestants and were like to prove the occasion of future Contentions I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Retain or to Apoint these Ceremonies and then proceed 1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the Innocent Rites and Practises which were observed in the Church before And What could more harden the Papists then to see Men put no difference betwen these It is an unspeakable Advantage which those do give to the Papists who are for Reforming 1600 years backward and when they are pinch'd with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity working in the Apostles times as though every thing which they disliked were a part of it Next to the taking up Arms for Religion which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France especially among Learned and Moderate Men as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church For the time was when many Great Men there were very inclinable to a Reformation but when they saw the Reformers oppose the undoubted Practises of Antiquity equally with the Modern Corruptions they cast them off as Men guilty of an unreasonable humor of Innovation as may be seen in Thuanus and Fran. Baldwins Ecclesiastical Commentaries and his Answers to Calvin and Beza But our Reformers although they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors that were sound in Religion and therefore they retained these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church II. To manifest the Iustice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see they did not Break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were subtle and learned Men as Gardiner Heath Tonstall c. and nothing would have rejoyced them more than to have seen our Reformers boggle at such Ceremonies as these and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the People Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers scrupling the Episcopal Vestments Peter Martyr tells him plainly That such needless scrupulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation For saith he since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary if we once declare things indifferent to be unlawful they will have no patience to hear us any longer And withall hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches and those Ancient Churches which have hitherto to been in great esteem III. To shew their Consent with other Protestant Churches which did allow and practice the same or more Ceremonies as the Lutheran Churches generally did And even Calvin himself in his Epistle to Sadolet declared That he was for restoring the Face of the Antient Church and in his Book of the true way of Reformation he saith He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for Decency but those that are Symbolical Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament as indifferent Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable Since therefore so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful our first Reformers for this and the foregoing Reasons thought it fit to retain them as long as they were so few so easie both to be practised and understood Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad did not wear off at their Return home in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign For they reteined a secret dislike of many things in our Church but the Act of Vniformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoyned I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it no not by the Dissenting Brethren that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva Knox was forbidden to Preach here because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen but Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of Preferment and Imployment in the Church The Bishops at first shewed kindness to them on the account of their forward and zealous Preaching which at that time was very needful and therefore many of them were placed in London Where having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies and a desire of farther Reformation of our Liturgy but finding that they had gained ground they never ceased till by inveighing against the Livery of Antichrist as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies they had inflamed the People to that degree that Gilby himself insinuates That if they had been let alone a little longer they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church This was the first occasion of pressing Vniformity with any rigor and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others But as kindness made them presumptuous so this severity made them clamorous and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva Beza after much importunity undertook to give an Answer to them which being of great consequence to our present business I shall here give a fuller account of it We are then to understand that about this time the Dissenting Party being Exasperated by the Silencing some of their most busie Preachers began to have Separate Meetings This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London and it appears by an Examination taken before him 20th of Iune 1567. of certain persons who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches but for gathering together and making Assemblies using Prayers and Preachings and Ministring Sacraments among themselves and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding for that Purpose The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences and then told them That in this Severing
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
Christian Magistrate was by any Prophet either commanded to deal otherwise than by perswasion in publick Reformation when the Magistrate neglected it or reproved for the contrary Fourthly To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave yet not contrary to his liking or when he opposed his Authority directly and inhibited it they never erected the Discipline when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then yet would it not follow that we may do so now for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church as the Christian Magistrate is neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power to pull down and set up Orders in the Church as the Apostles those wise Master-builders had Fifthly As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced they declare 1. So long as the Bishops Suspend and Deprive according to the Law of the Land we account of the Action herein as of the Act of the Church which we may and ought to reverence and yield unto if they do otherwise we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them If it be said the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient We Answer That it lieth on them to Depose who may Ordain and they may shut that may open And as he may with a good Conscience execute a Ministery by the Ordination and Calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness if the Church will press him to it so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserveth Deprivation cease from the execution of his Ministery when he is pressed thereunto by the Church And if a guiltless person put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it What proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are alwayes guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudgment That they are called of God and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops 2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects First They that Inhibited the Apostles were known and professed enemies to the Gospel Secondly The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Gospel which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto than this of our Bishops who though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government and Reformation of the Church yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached but are also Preachers of it themselves Thirdly The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men nor by the hands of Men but immediately from God himself and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men whereas we though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author and we are also called of God to it yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery To this which I had referred Mr. B. to he gives this Answer If Mr. Rathband hath denied this it had been no proof Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof My words are That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband Can any thing be plainer than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it This way of Answering is just as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament and another should reply If Curcellaeus said so it had been no proof Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers When Fr. Iohnson said That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery no not by Lawful Magistrates Mr. Bradshaw Answered This Assertion is false and seditious And when Iohnson saith That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal but this that they ought to obey God rather than Man which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians Bradshaw a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson gives this Answer 1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God as the Ground of their refusal in so many Letters and Syllables yet that which they do assign is by Implication and in effect the same with it For it is as much as if they had said God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us and not Man and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us For opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man they therein plead a Calling from God and not from Man otherwise if they had received a Calling from Man there had been incongruity in the Answer considering that in common sense and reason they ought so far forth to obey Men forbidding them to exercise a Calling as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling Else by this reason a Minister should not cease to Preach upon the Commandment of the Church that hath chosen him but should be bound to give them also the same Answer which the Apostles gave which were absurd So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever to depose a Minister from his Ministery but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery 2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to Sedition we are to know that though the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists Preached Publickly where they were not hindred by open violence and did not nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority or Commandment whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate whether they would or no or in despite of them but such in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate were as private and invisible as might be 3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly
I do not understand For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right especially a small part against the whole in one case then in the other Which makes me wonder at those who daâ—e call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any Men do enjoy their Estates And they who assert that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to adhere to their former Pastors as Mr. A. doth who saith They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws passed by general consent in Parliament but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation For the Papists then had the very same Plea that these Men have now vâ—z That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation between their former Church Guides and them and thereforâ— notwithstanding Acts of Parliament they were still hound to adhere to them For the Magistrate had no power in such matters and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers So much do these Men in pursuing the interests of their Parties overthrow the principles of the Reformation For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers and to put others in their places or he hath none if he hath none then What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation when the Popish Bishops and Priests were ejected and others put into their places If they say He hath a just power in some cases but not in theirs Is not this a Plea common to all For whoever thought themselves justly ejected Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment What then is to be done in this case if Men think themselves unjustly cast out The old Non-conformists said They ought to sit down quietly with this satisfaction that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly although they did not They might by joyning in their private capacities in Communion with our Churches and drawing the People to it by their example and encouragement have done more good both to the People and to this Church than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either But if they go upon such principles â—s these That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them That others are Vsurpers who come in their places That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws And that 't is Schism to separate from them notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our publick Assemblies I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians This I the rather insist upon because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it but that it is made the standing Plea for the necessity of the present Separation among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question Whether they can be said to erect new Churches or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations who were true Ministers and had their Congregations before others came into their places If they had done nothing worthy of ejection or exclusion from their Ministry whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function And consequently whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them as they are charged with the same practice There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned if Ministers be ejected without or against Law they who come into their places are no Usurpers and if they are cast out by Law they that succeed them are Usurpers so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration Secondly All those who come into any Pastoral charge whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings Nomination or others by the Presentation of Patrons are Vsurpers unless the People be pleased to give their free consent and if they do it not they may lawfully withdraw from them For saith Mr. B. the People have an antecedent Right to consent which none can take from them And he saith he hath proved it by many Canons that he was no Bishop that was not chosen by the Clergy and the People or came in without the Peoples consent Nay if they have the consent of some and not of the greater part those who did not consent may proceed to choose another Bishop if Mr. B. say true For these are his words If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People or 50000 or 20000 as ye will suppose and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters and a Thousand People or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or Consent of the Diocesan Church nor is it Schism for twenty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling as Mr. A. suggests there is nothing hinders them but that in spite of Laws they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops and new Pastors of Churches wherever they think they can make the Majority For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People say they to choose their own Pastors Again saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea If Bishops that have no better a Foundation i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination and not by the Majority of the People shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches and command the Peoples acceptance and obeâ—â—â—nce i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presentation the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom It is plain then all Bishops of the Kings Nomination all Ministers presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers the People may give them a good Title if they please but they are not to blame if they do it not For in them Mr. B. saith the chief Power is and sometimes he tells them they are bound to Separate however while they do not consent they are no Churches which they are set over and it is no Schism so to pronounce them nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace and the true and only way of Concord which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions only that they might have some pretence for their present Separation Sect. 12. 3.
occasional Communion with us to be lawful should not think themselves obliged to constant Communion From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord as Mr. B. saith That is a good ground so far as it goes But will it not carry a Man farther if he pursue it as he ought to do What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches and at the same time to declare That there is greater purity of Worship and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation But if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasional Presence at some times and in some Acts of Worship for saith Mr. Ball To use one Ordinance and not another is to make a Schism in the Church The only Example produced to justify such occasional Communion with defective Churches is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in the Iewish Synagogues and Temple But this is so far from being true that the old Separatists granted That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances living and dying a Member thereof and from thence they prove That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time And did not he declare That he came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfill it And that he complyed with Iohn 's Baptism because he was to fulfill all righteousness Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ierusalem as a Member of the Iewish Church and frequent the Synagogues Even at the Feast of Dedication though not instituted by the Law he was present as other Iews were Yea Did he not express more than ordinary zeal for purifying the outward parts of the Temple because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there as well as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use And Doth not the Apostle expresly say That he was made under the Law Where is there the least ground in Scripture to intimate that Christ only kept occasional and not constant communion with the Iewish Church What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses Chair Where did he ever bid them go thither when they could have no better but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Worship and better Means of Edification Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs Is there any pretence for greater Edification now to be mention'd with what the Disciples had to forsake the Iewish Assemblies for the love of Christ 's own Teaching Yet he would not have them to do that out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teaching Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples Occasionally and at certain Seasons but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies And so it was after his Passion till the Holy Ghost feâ—l upon them and they were then imploy'd to gather and form a new Church which was not done before and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes That we never read of Christ 's Praying together with his Disciples unless perhaps at his Transfiguration with three of his Disciples although we often read of his Praying alone So that no example can be mention'd which is more directly contrary to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds than that of our Blessed Saviour's which ought to be in stead of all others to us Sect. 19. 2. I argue from the particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things From whence it appears evident that Men ought to go as far as they can towards Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity To take off the force of the Argument from this place several Answers have been given which I shall now remove so that the strength of it may appear to remain notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it Some say That the Apostles words are to be understood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge and the different conceptions and opinions which they had concerning the Truths of the Gospel Thus Dr. O. understands the Text whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expressed but as far as I can apprehend his meaning he makes this to be the Apostles viz. I. That although the best Christians in this life cannot attain to a full measure and perfection in the comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel or the enjoyment of the things contained in them yet they ought to be pressing continually after it II. That in the common pursuit of this design it is not to be supposed but the Men will come to different attainments have different measures of light and knowledge yea and different conceptions or opinions about these things III. That in this difference of opinions those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other as far as they had attained they should walk by the same Rule namely which he had now laid down and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them From whence he infers That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with Schism who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel do yet dissent from others in some things that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded And again he saith The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties is that whereunto they have attained wherein they do agree which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things that is forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ which saith he is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists For the clearing of this matter there are Three things to be debated 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or different practises 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual forbearance 3. How far the Apostles Rule hath an influence on our present case First Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or of different practises For the right understanding of this we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution
all partakers of that one Bread And by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body whether we be Iews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit The Vnity of the Christian Church St. Paul saith is to be preserved by the bond of Peace and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head whom he calls One Lord so they are joyned together by One Faith and One Baptism Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds as well as Internal that is One Faith and One Baptism as well as One Lord and One Spirit so the manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by External Acts for How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual as inward love to the Members of the Body being present in Spirit c Therefore the Obligation to preserve the Vnity of the Church doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion 3. Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient Reason for it Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoyned we are to suppose it still to hold where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear Although God hath with great severity forbidden Killing yet when himself appointed particularly cases wherein Mens Lives were to be taken away we are thereby assur'd that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden so in the present case if it appear that although Separation from the Câ—mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin But then as in the former case no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice so here no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end will justifie his Separation for the guilt of the sin remains as great in it self And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church which our Saviour prayed for and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere From hence Irenaeus saith That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own advantage than the Churches Vnity who for slight causes or for any make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ and do what in them lies to destroy it They speak for Peace saith he but they mean War they strain at a Gnat and swallow Camels The benefit they hope to bring to the Church cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism Nothing provokes God more saith St. Chrysostom than to divide his Church Nay saith he the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it The Mischief the Church receives by it is greater than it receives from open Enemies for the one makes it more glorious the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies when it is set upon by its own Children This saith he I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church If their doctrine be contrary to ours for that reason they ought to abstain if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to do it so much the rather Do no you know what Corah Dathan and Abiram suffer'd and not they only but those that were with them But you say they have the same Faith and they are very Orthodox Why then saith he do they Separate One Loâ—d one Faith one Baptism If they do well we do ill if we do well they do ill If they have the same Doctrines the same Sacraments For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours It is nothing but vain glory ambition and deceit Take away the People from them and you cut off the disease And after much more to that purpose I speak these things saith he that no Man might say he did not know it to be such a sin I tell you and testifie this to you that Separation from the Church or dividing of it is no less a sin than falling into Heresy If the sin then be so great and dangerous Men ought to examin with great care what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin And I do earnestly desire our Brethren as they love their own Souls and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us and set up other Churches in opposition to ours which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox and to agree with them in the same Doctrine and the same Sacraments 4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation First In the case of Idolatrous Worship For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church Neither be ye Idolaters Flee from Idolatry Keep your selves from Idols Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And to the case of Idolaters St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babylonians Come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing Now in this case where there is so plain a Command there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation if Men cannot joyn with a Church in their Religious Worship without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden Secondly In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body like putrid Members lest they should corrupt the rest St. Paul commands Titus when there is no hopes of reclaiming such to exclude them from the Society of Christians St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine Thirdly In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account And this was the case of the false Apostles who urged the
whatsoever you shall bind c. From whence saith he by a constant succession of times such a course hath been always observed in the Church that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct Since this saith he is a Divine Institution I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me concerning the lapsed since the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the standing People In his Epistle to Antonianus he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world and in that to Cornelius that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus and to Pupianus where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop and to Stephanus that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course Let the Reader now judge whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church But we have this advantage from this appeal that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgment any one may see when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church but what was generally observed over the Christian world And now let Dr. O. give an account how a change so great so sudden so universal should happen in the Christian world in the Government of the Church that when Christ had placed the Power in the People the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs without any controul from the People which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear that the Power was at first lodged in them and not in the People For as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History and that over all the world and in a way of ambition in such humbling times without all manner of opposition for 300 years together and immediately after the Apostles had it been usurpation or innovation When and where is innovation without opposition Would not Elders so many seeing and knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed Aërius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable The force of which reasoning will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease Sect. 5. 2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture The matter of fact is that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture yet saith he there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way The thing I desired was that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations they would prove that they did make new and distinct Churches and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province Who ever denied or disputed that On the contrary the proof of this is a great advantage to our Cause for since where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province it speaks of them as of different Churches but when it mentions the Christians of one City it calls them the Church of that City as the Church of Ierusalem the Church of Ephesus but the Churches of Iudea Galilee and Samaria what can be more evident than that the Christians of one City though never so numerous made but one Church If one observe the language of the New Testament one may find this observation not once to fail that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number they are the Churches of a Province as the Churches of Iudea the Churches of Asia the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of it is still câ—lled the Church of that City as the Church at Antioch the Church at Corinth and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together they are the 7 Churches but when spoken to single it is the Church of Ephesus the Church of Smyrna c. Which being spoken without any discrimination as to the difference of these places in greatness and capacity or the number of Believers in them doth evidently discover that what number soever they were they were all but the Church of that City For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus Sardis Pergamus and Laodicea which were great and populous Cities than in Thyatira and Philadelphia which were much less especially considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephesâ—s and the mighty success which he had in preaching there which will amount to no great matter if in three years time he converted no more than made up one single Congregation And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power and prevalency of the Gospel I cannot but wonder what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province as Galatia and Macedonia he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations who denies that but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City though never so great made but one Church and uncontroulable evidence from Antiquity that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City All that he saith further to this matter is that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves because in every one of them Elders were ordained Act.
the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter And here the main Controversie lies between us and the Congregational Churches Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter then it follows as much from the nature of the thing that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace And I cannot yet see by all that hath been said how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism how great and intolerable soever it be thought As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila and Nymphas and Philemon I say that this is to be understood not of a Church meeting in their Houses but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say most of our Divines are of that Opinion and therefore the Argument holds against them And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before what obligation of Conscience can be upon any when they may serve God in their Families in opposition to Laws to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them For 1. he grants that a Church may be in a Family although a Family as such be not a Church Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church for a Church he saith may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Family Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion especially when the addition of four more may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church 2. All that he saith is that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families And what then the Question is not now whether they be lawfull but whether they be necessary for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law but where is that Command Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches as his great Rule in these cases But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families All that he saith further as to this matter is that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance which in this case amounts to separation But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land and much more before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them All men no doubt that ever broke Laws if this Plea would be admitted would transfer the blame upon those that made them And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull In my Sermon as it is printed I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter That to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted 1. He saith Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority and imposed in such a manner that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies and consequently affords a better plea for Separation But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning I will set down his own Cautions 1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop if he hath Curates under him This he calls Parochial Episcopacy 2. Nor whether these should have Archbishops over them as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office 3. Nor whether Partriarchs Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull as Officers of the King exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit 4. Nor if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them You will ask then where lies this horrible imposition and intolerable usurpation It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making which according to Mr. B. requires two things 1. Local and presential Communion as he calls it i.e. That it consists onely of so many as can well meet together for Church Society 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours which being taken away they are onely Curates and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church I shall undertake these three things 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
attribute Iustification to the Sacraments and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies However since they attribute so spiritual effects to them it is an argument they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship as much as they do on Prayer with which they compare them in point of efficacy But with what face can this be objected against our Church which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us and declares that they are no otherwise received in our Church than as they are purged from Popish Superstition and Errour And therefore all opinion of merit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship which being removed they remain onely naked Ceremonies i. e. as Cassander well expresses it Words made visible or teaching Actions whose design and intention being towards us and not towards God they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship although they be used in the performance of them As if the Christians in the East did wear the bâ—dge of a Cross upon their Arms at some solemn days as on good Friday at their devotions to distinguish them from Turks and Iews would any one say that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Worship So that the distinction between these two is not so hard to find if men apply their minds to the consideration of it 2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution If men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual effects and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as expresly as it is possible that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable and that changes and alterations may be made as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremoâ—â— any parts of Divine Worship than these things dâ— And thus I have at once shewed what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church For Mr. A. saith An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship I answer 1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another is no part of Divine Worship at all much less a substantial part of it There are some visible signs from God to men representing the effects of his Grace to us and those we call Sacraments there are other signs from men to God to testifie their subjection and dependence and these are acts of Worship and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action and these are significant Ceremonies such as the Cross in Baptism is For after the Child is baptized and received into the Church the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. To whom is this token made Is it to God no certainly If it were a permanent sign of the Cross would it be for a Testimony to God or to Men When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified was this a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace as the Sacraments are It represents the Duty and not the Grace the Duty is ours and may be represented by us but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that because he alone is the Giver of it 2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God but of obligation on the person It is true that in the 30 Canon it is said that this Church retains the sign of the Cross following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof we must consider That Baptism is declared to be compleat before so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it nor being omitted takes nothing from it as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church This therefore is no part of the Baptismal Dedication And the Minister acts in a double capacity when he doth baptize and when he signs with the sign of the Cross when he baptizeth he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. Which being done and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism he then speaks in the name of the Church varying the number We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one do make use of this sign of the Cross as the Rite of Admission into the Church and of his obligation to behave himself as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense as no doubt it was so intended all the difficulties about a Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign concerning which some have made so great a stir will soon appear to be of no force For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Let us suppose an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe
among them the Pastour of the Church then baptizes him and immediately after upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant he saith in the name of the Church we receive thee into this Congregation and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us What harm is there in all this And yet is not this a Professing Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person Is it not therefore dedicating covenanting and sacramental as much as the sign of the Cross Why then should this be scrupled more than the other And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross and as God's Officer from him and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church as evidently appears by those words We receive him into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and then follows as the solemn rite of Admission And do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. All publick and solemn Admissions into Societies having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churchs Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull as a transient arbitrary professing sign yet not as a dedicating sign and as the common professing symbol of baptized Persons If it be lawfull in the former sense I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter Yes saith he the instituting of the latter belongs to God onely How doth that appear Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end True but not onely for that end but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men which none but God himself can doe and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution which is the onely possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament because it is a professing sign of Reverence then laying on the hand and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments because they are publick symbolical Rites But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onely to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects Yet I hope every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians And is not every Church-member bound to perform these That which is peculiar is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members i. e. makes it necessary to none else and to shew it to be onely a solemn Rite of Admission it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient we need not devise more and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency If it be lawfull the Church is to judge of the expediency and not every private person And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Well saith Mr. B. but it is unlawfull on another account viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship and so forbidden in the Second Commandment He may as well make it unlawfull to use Words in God's Worship for are not they Images and represent things to our minds as well as a transient sign of the Cross Nay doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God as he instanceth in a Crucifix or historical Image of Christ or some holy man If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose what out-cries of Popery had been made against us How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted to shew that they went no further and desired no more than this Yet the transient sign of the Cross without any respect to Worship is condemned among us as forbidden by the Second Commandment and that by the same person and in the same page But it is used as a medium in God's Worship Is our Worship directed to it or do we kneel before it as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God No all these are rejected by our Church How then is it a medium in God's Worship Why forsooth it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship What as much as kneeling before a Crucifix and yet that is lawfull according to him supposing the mind be onely excited by it Suppose then we onely use the sign of the Cross to excite mens consideration in the act of Worship what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground But our Church allows not so much onely taking it for a lawfull outward Ceremony which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship For Mr. B. saith in the same place there is a twofold medium in God's Worship 1. Medium excitans that raises our minds to Worship God as a Crucifix c. 2. Medium terminans or as he calls it terminus in genere causae finalis a worshipped medium or the terminus or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment viz. to worship a Creature with mind or body in the Act of Divine Worship as representing God or as the mediate term of our Worship by which we send it unto God as if it were more acceptable to him So
that it is lawfull saith he by the sight of a Crucifix to be provoked to worship God but it 's unlawfull to offer him that Worship by offering it to the Crucifix first as the sign way or means of sending it to God Observe here a strange piece of partiality 1. It is allowed to be lawfull to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans as an object that stirs up in us a worshipping affection and so all those Papists are excused from Idolatry who profess they use a Crucifix for no other end although they perform all Acts of adoration before it and it will become a very hard Question whether the mind in its consideration uniting the Image with the Object may not give the same Acts of Worship to one as to the other but in different respects For the Image being allowed to excite the mind to consideration of the object to be worshipped the object is considered in the mind as represented by the Image and consequently is so worshipped and why then may not the worship be as well directed to the Image as representing as to the Object represented by the Image provided that the Act of the mind be still fixed upon the Object as represented by the Image And thus even Latria may be performed to a Crucifix Is not this a very fair concession to the Papists But on the other side 2. The sign of the Cross even the aëreal sign as Dr. O. calls it must be made a medium in God's Worship though it be utterly denied by our Church and there be no colour for it from his own grounds For it is neither medium excitans being not intended by our Church for that purpose a Crucifix being much fitter for that purpose and our Church calls it onely a lawfull ceremony and honourable badge much less can it be thought to be any mediate object of our Worship there being nothing like Worship performed towards it But if all his meaning be that whatever is used in the time of Worship that is not a meer circumstance must be a medium of Worship that is so weak a pretence that I shall consider it no farther Sect. 31. But suppose it be no medium of Worship yet it cannot out of Mr. B. 's Head but that it must be a new Sacrament For saith he If Christ had instituted the Cross as our Church doth would you not have called this a Sacrament And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction it wanteth indeed a due efficient but it is still a Human Sacrament though not a Divine and therefore an unlawfull Sacrament If Christ had instituted it with such promises as he hath his other Sacraments no doubt it had been one but then the use of it had been quite changed from what it is now For then its signification had been from God to us and the Minister had signed in Christ's Name and not in the Churches and then it had been in token that Christ will not fail of his Promise if we perform our Conditions But here it is quite contrary as hath already appeared There is one thing yet remaining in Mr. B. about this matter to be considered viz. That according to the Rule of our Church the Cross in Baptism hath a Sacramental efficacy attributed to it for saith he As the Water of Baptism worketh morally by signifying the washing of Christ's Body so the Cross is to operate morally by signifying Christ's Crucifixion the benefits of his Cross and our Duty And then he adds That it is the common Doctrine of Protestants that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally and that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain onely such moral Causality in Sacraments And so by this means he would make the sign of the Cross to have the nature of a Sacrament with us But that he hath misrepresented or misapplied both the Popish and Protestant Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments to serve his purpose I shall now make appear 1. Concerning the Popish Doctrine that which overthrows the strength of all that Mr. B. saith is that it is unanimously agreed among them as a matter of faith that the Sacraments do confer grace ex opere operato where there is no actual impediment and that it is no less than heresie to assert that they are bare outward professing signs i. e. That they are meer Ceremonies This not one of them whom I ever saw either denies or disputes and it is expresly determin'd in the Councils of Florence and of Trent But then they have a very nice and subtle question among them about the manner how the Sacraments do confer Grace whether physically or morally By physically they mean when a thing by its own immediate action hath influence on producing the effect by morally they mean that which doth effectually concurr to the producing the effect but after another manner as by perswasion by intreaty c. As he that runs the sword into anothers bowels kills him physically he that perswades and incourages him effectually to doe it is as really the cause of his death as the other but then they say he is but a moral and not a physical cause of the murther They all agree that the Sacraments do effectually convey Grace where there is no obstacle put but the onely question is about the manner of producing it And as to this they agree that the Sacraments do work as moral Causes not principal but instrumental the principal they say is the Merit of Christ the Instrumental the Sacraments as deriving their efficacy from the former as the Writing from the Seal and the Seal from the Authority of the Person or as Money from the Stamp and the Stamp from the King but besides this they question whether there be not a proper efficiency by Divine Power in the Sacraments to produce at least the character from whence Divine Grace immediately follows And about this indeed they are divided Some say there is no necessity of asserting more than a bare moral Causality because this is sufficient for the infallible efficacy of the Sacraments sublato obice as Gamachaeus a late Professour in the Sorbon delivers their Doctrine and of this opinion he reckons Bonaventure Altissidore Scotus Durandus Canus Ledesma and many others and with this he closes because this is sufficient and the other is to make Miracles without cause as long as the effect follows certò infallibiliter ex opere operato as he there speaks And for the same reason Card. de Lugo yields to it although he there saith that a Sacrament is signum practicum infallibile Gratiae So that those who do assert onely this moral Causality of Sacraments do not suppose any uncertainty in the effect any more than the others do but onely differ about the way of producing it Yet Ysambertus another late Professour of the Sorbon proves the Doctrine of a Physical efficiency to be much
the sign of the Cross at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images 2. For Circumcision which he tells us may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law that he saith If ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing which was never said of any of our Ceremonies And whereas he saith it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony he is much mistaken if their Emperour Claudius say true for he saith it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia and boreing the ear among the Indians And Ludolphus proves it to be no other because it is done by a woman in private without any witnesses 3. As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation But why are things never used by the Primitive Church for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false it is nothing to us brought to parallel our Ceremonies when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church which observed the same kind of Ceremonies The only remaining pretence for the present Separation is that there is a parity of reason as to their Separating from us and our Separating from the Church of Rome For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable then this will hold for themselves because they think so and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike When 1. They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true we reject all their additional Articles in Pius 4. his Creed not only as false but some of them as absurd and unreasonable as men can invent viz. that of Transubstantiation which is made by them the great trying and burning point But what is there which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine as new as false as absurd nay they all yield to the Antiquity to the Truth to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it You may be sure it is some mighty thing for he saith presently after it that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice Alas for him that his modesty should ever hurt him But what is this dangerous Secret that they have hitherto kept in out of meer veneration to the Church of England Let us prepare our selves for this unusual this killing charge Why saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church this Doctrine is contained It is matter of Doctrine then I see although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles as far as they concern Doctrine But what is this notorious doctrine It is saith he that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Did I not fear it was some dreadful thing some notorious heresie condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils But is it said so in plain words or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Consequences No it is plain enough for the Question is What is required of Persons to be baptized Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament Quest. Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform But I pray doth it hence follow that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Are not the words express that they promise both by their Sureties And is promising and performance all one I do not find it so by this Instance For here was a great matter promised and nothing performed It is true the Catechism saith Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptized which supposeth the persons to be baptized capable of performing these things themselves And then comes a Question by way of objection why then are Infants baptized c. to which the sense of the Answer is that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised And now let the Reader judge since this horrible Secret is come out whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church And I know nothing can do them greater Service than such Parallels as these 2. We charge them with those Reasons for Separation which the Scripture allows such as Idolatry perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ and Tyranny over the Consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so But not one of these can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God we worship no Images we invocate no Sains we adore no Host we creep to no Crucifix we kiss no Relicks We equal no traditions with the Gospel we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christs and to dispence with his Laws and Institutions We mangle no Sacraments nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a
the party of the Church of Rome I judged quite otherwise of them they have particular Maxims and act by other interests But for those that have no tye to Rome it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extream as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith which all the Protestant World has so highly approved and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford and the great Iewell deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England And if it had not been as it were his work he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner The success that it has had ought to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate and it 's having triumphed over so many obstacles should make all the World acknowledge that God has declared himself in favour of it and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word to which in effect it owes its birth and original It is the same at present as it was when it was made and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time And how then can it be imagined that it has changed its use And can there be any thing more unjust than to say that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people for the consolation of so many good men for the salvation of so many believers is now become a destructive and pernicious thing If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent your Divine Service is so too for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry You adore nothing but God alone in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature And if there be some Ceremonies there which one shall not meet with in some other places this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity to put off all Charity not to know much what souls are worth not to understand the nature of things indifferent to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally that are willing to submit themselves unto them It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any For where has it been ever seen that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline and things that regard but the out-side and order of the Church and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth Can these things cause death and distill poyson into a soul Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths and as there is nothing but these that can save so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation For the Episcopal Government what is there in it that is dangerous and may reasonably alarm mens consciences And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory and shutting the Gates of Heaven who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government If it were contrary to the truth and the attainment of eternal happiness is it credible that God had so highly approved it and permitted his Church to be tyrannized over by it for so many Ages For who was it that did govern it Who was it that did make up its Councils as well General as particular Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted Was it not the Bishops And is it not to their wise conduct to which next under God his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was inveloped Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe In truth I think they might make the same use of this as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place but then his courage his zeal his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Hereticks that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it he would have to bear the name of Anastasia because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth and cleared it from the error that lay upon it and by his continual cares had caused it as it were to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection It is this too that the Bishops of England have done they saw not only one truth but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them than it was any where else The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design the enemies without and those within as terrible as they seem do not fright them they undertake this great work and do not leave it till they had brought it about and raised up the truth and placed it again upon the Throne in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection But if their Churches have not that title the thing it self belongs unto them and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these but lectures and praises of the pure truth Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it but to look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church Thus all the Protestants of France do those of Geneva those of Switzerland and German and those of Holland too for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort and shewed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England And from whence does it then come that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present and
more agreeable to the sense of their Church and that the argument is of no force against it because it is so hard to be understood for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this Ioh. Baptista Gonet a late learned Thomist not onely contends earnestly for this opinion but saith The greater part of their Divines assert it and those of greatest reputation as Ruardus Tapper Vega Sayrus Ysambertus Suarez Valentia Bellarmin Reginaldus Moeratius Ripalda and many more And Conquetius he saith reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments as it is asserted by their Divines to the significancy of our Ceremonies 2. As to the Protestant Doctrines he represents that in very ambiguous terms for he saith That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally If it be their Doctrine that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all which he seems to yield and if he did not might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad as well as at home This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onely invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons There being not the least ground for it that I can discern and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds and have filled them with strange fears and scruples yea some who have conquer'd their prejudices as to other things have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way And yet after all Mr. B. declares That if it be a sin it is the Ministers and not the Person 's who offers the Child to be baptized and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it yet it can be no pretence for Separation Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church for allowing worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Iesus which he saith are made the Motive of Worship if not something else The lawfulness of these things so far as they are required by our Church I had formerly defended against the Papists and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used I had said that bowing at the name of Iesus was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell the Worship being not given to the Name but to Christ at the sound of his Name Why may not saith he an Image give warning to the Eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear I will tell him since he needs it because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant But such men do too much discover whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs but the Question is whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated Motive to Worship When I read this I began to pity the man being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans he had some reason to have answered him but I have none But he brings it home to us for saith he If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship then how shall we excuse our own adorations What doth the man mean I am yet afraid all things are not right somewhere We acknowledge no adorations but what are due to the Divine Majesty and do these need to be excused And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images against our worshipping of God Let him first prove that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty before we shall go about to excuse our adorations But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship whoever said they did not I am sure not our Church But let this pass what follows then saith he why do we not introduce Images into our Churches Ask Mr. B. that Question and not us of the Church of England If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull this were a pertinent Question but since we deny it what makes all this against us which if our Church-men shall venture upon I pray stay till they do before you charge us with it Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate But he saith they may doe it with equal reason Here is something now fit to be proved We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body or to Iesus at the mention of his name Hold now to this and prove it Instead of that he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell and bowing at the name of Iesus viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship when mens minds should be intent on devotion and not sit listening and watching as Whittington ' s Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you viz. what he hath laboured for all this while for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God which no body contends for that I know of but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons or the Creed and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly and although it be said or otherwise in the Church pronounced yet by the manner
qui ne vouloient point de communion avec ceux qui avoient esté ordines par des Evéques laches qui s'imaginoient que leur societé étoit la veritable Eglise l'épouse bien aimée qui paissoit son troupeau vers le midi Entre eux ceux de la communion Romaine qui ont si bonne opinion de leur Eglise que hors d'elle ils ne s'imaginent pas qu'un puisse jamais acquerir le Salut Pour moy quelque enclin que je sois a la tolerance je ne pourois pourtant me persuader qu'il en faille avoir pour ceux qui en ont si peu pour les autres que s'ils étoient les maitres feroient assurement un mauvais quartiér a ceux qui dependroient d'eux Ie regarde ces gens lá comme de perturbateurs de l'Estat de l'Eglise qui sont infalliblement animés d'un esprit de sedition I'ay méme de la paine a croire qu'ils soient justement ce qu'ils disent estre je craindrois bien que sous ces Docteurs il n'y eust des ennemis tres dangereux qui fussent cachés Des Societés composées detelles personnes seroient extrement perilleuses on ne les pourroit soufrir sans ouvrir la porte au disordre travailler asa propre ruine Ily en a de composées de personnes plus raisonnables Mais j'y voudrois qu'elles le fussent assez pour ne se point separer de celles qui composent l' Eglise Anglicane particulierement au terme ou nous sommes elles devroient tout faire pour une bonne Reconciliation dans le conjuncture des affaires presentes ils devroient bien s'aperçevoir qu'il n'y a qu'une bonne reunion qui puisse prevenir les maux dont l'Angleterre est menacée Car pour dire la verité je ne voi pas que leue Meetings soient de fort grande utilité qu'on puisse s'y consoler davantage que dans les Eglises Episcopales Quand j'estois a Londres il y a bien tost cinq ans je me trouvay en plusieurs assemblées particulieres pour voir comme on l'y prenoit pour l'instruction du peuple la predication de la parole de Dieu Mais j'avoue que je â—'en receus aucune edification I'entendis un de plus fameux Non-conformistes Il pre-choit en vn lieu ou il y avoit trois hommes soissante ou quatre vingt â—emmes Il avoit choisi un texte touchant le restablissement des ruines de Ierusalem pour l'expliquer il cita cent fois Plinie Vitruve n'oublia pas de dire en Italien ce proverbe duro con duro non fa muro Tout cela me parut hors de propos fort peu a propos pour des femmelettes tres eloigné d'un esprit qui ne cherche que la consolation l'edification de ses auditeurs Se Cantonner faire un schisme pour avoir la liberté de debiter de telles vanitâ—s est une fort mâ—â—vaise conduite les peuples paroissent bien â—â—ibles de quitter leur mutuelles assemblées pour de choses qui mâ—ritent â—i peu leur estime leur preference Ie n'estime pas qu'on soit en obligation de souffrir ce dereglement Il est vray qu'autrefois on souffroit les Assemblées de Novatiens á Rome à Constantinople que le Donatistes a voient en la premiere place quelque sorte de liberté Mais c'estoit les Estrangers cela méme ne dura pas long temps comme il'y en avoit peu cela ne tiroit pas en consequence Mais c'est un autre fait en Angleterre comme le bien de l' Estat de l' Eglise depend absolument de l'union du peuple sur le poinct de la Religion on n'y pourroit trop presser une union universelle Mais il la faut procurer par les bonnes voyes comme Messieurs les Evéques sont de personnes d'une grande experience d'un Scavoir extraordinaire d'un zele d'une bonté envers leur peuples veritablement paternelle j'espere qu'ils s'employeront a câ—grand Oâ—rage avec toute la prudence la charitè qui sâ—nt necessâ—ires pour faire reüssir une si louable entreprise t'ous particulierement Monseigneur dont la moderation la capacité sont reconnües de tout le mâ—nde il semble que 〈◊〉 soit un dessein reservé pour votre grande Sagâ—sse 〈◊〉 vous n'y reuscistes pas apparemment que tous les autres ' y travailleront inutilement Pour mor je re 〈◊〉 â—â—â—tribuer d'icy que de voâ—us que de prâ—res 〈◊〉 bien protester que j'en fais tous les jours de fâ—â—r sinceres pour la prosperité de 〈…〉 qu'il plaise a Dieu faire en sorte que tous les Protestants d'Angleterre ne soyent a l'avenir qu'un coeur qu'une Ame. Ie prie Vostre Grandeur d'en estre bien persuadé de croire qu'il n'est pas possible d'estre avec plus de respect que je le suis A Leyden 3 Septemb 1680. Monseigneur Votre tres humble tres Obeissant Serviteur Le Moyne First Letter A Letter from Monsieur le Moyne Professor of Divinity at Leyden to my Lord Bishop of London concerning the nature of our present Differences and the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England My Lord TWo Journeys that I have been obliged to take have hindered me from answering the Letter with which your Lordship did me the favour to honour me so soon as I could have wished Just as I was about to excuse my self to you for it Monsieur de l' Angle came to this Town which made me defer it longer yet in hopes that he would charge himself with my answer and that by that means it might be brought unto you more safely It is true my Lord that if I should hearken to my own unwillingness I should put it off still to another time for I cannot write unto you without being extreamly grieved when I think upon the matter of which you command me to tell you my opinion I believe that you know it already and that you do not do me the honour to ask it of me as if you had any kind of doubt of it You do me more right than so and you do not account me of the number of those that have so ill an opinion of the Church of England For my part I had not so bad a one of any true English-man and I could not have perswaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a man could not be of her communion without hazarding his own salvation For those that are engaged in