gave a Demonstration hereof by their Excellent Lives and Heroick Behaviour under the greatest Torments they not onely patiently but also joyfully enduring them for the sake of Christ Nor do we find any more than they did that we are debarred by our Church of any Helps for the building of us up in our most holy faith And whereas you express such mighty zeal for Purer Ordinances we think that zeal would be much better employed in endeavouring after Purer Hearts And that this contending with your Superiours and your Brethren about some things enjoined hath been infinitely more prejudicial to mens Souls and contributed unspeakably more to the impurity both of mens hearts and lives than the impure Ordinances you so complain of And therefore all good and pious Church of England men cannot but say How happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing with such mighty concern about little things and things that are perfectly harmless and innocent Would make no more Sins than God and their Blessed Saviour have made Would be as fearfull of culpably Disobeying Authority as of culpably Obeying it Would be as thankfull that they are in no worse Circumstances as they are full of Complaints that they are in no better Would take as much pains to satisfie themselves how far they may lawfully hold Communion with our Church as how far they may lawfully Separate from it Would be as willing to read those Books that are written in the defence of the things enjoined by our Church as to read those which are written in opposition to them Would as impartially consider the vast distance between our Church and that of Rome as thus dwell upon the most inconsiderable Agreement that is between them which our Author hath convincingly to any unprejudiced person proved to be no justifiable pretence for Separation And if we would well digest those excellent words of the Apostle Rom. 14. 17 18. The Kingdom of God is not meat or drink but righteousness peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men And if we would follow after the things that make for peace and things wherein one may edifie another And lastly if we would at length be perswaded to Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamour and evil speaking against one another be put away from us with all malice And to be Kind and affectionate one to another notwithstanding the Difference of Apprehensions tender hearted forgiving one another even as God for Christ's sake hath forgiven us I say if we could once be brought to this temper we should be unspeakably more happy than those things you express so passionate a desire of could possibly make us And without this blessed temper we shall be miserable wretches though there were no Agreement in any one Rite between Rome and us and though our Ordinances were as pure as 't is your wish to have them Nor will our bidding the greatest defiance to the Antichrist in the Roman Chair one whit avail us while the Spiritual Antichrist which is the worse of the two continues possessed of his Seat in our Hearts And so Sir I heartily bid you Farewell ERRATA Page 19. Lin. 12. read in their greatest p. 27. l. 30. dele p. 32. l. 1. read is so contrived FINIS * pag. 4. * pag. 4. * p. 7. †p. 9. * p. 10. * p. 11. * p. 12. * p. 12. * p. 13. Eccl. pol. Book 5th p. 228. Last Edit v. 19. Eph. 4. 31 32.
A DEFENCE OF THE RESOLUTION OF THIS CASE VIZ. Whether the Church of England's Symbolizing so far as it doth with the Church of Rome makes it Unlawfull to hold Communion with the Church of England In Answer to a Book Intituled A Modest Examination OF THAT RESOLUTION LONDON Printed by J. H. for B. Aylmer at the Three Pigeons against the Royal Exchange in Cornhill 1684. A DEFENCE OF THE Resolution c. SIR I who know the Author of the Book which hath given you this trouble better than any man do conclude that you are not more a stranger to him than he is to you from the Epithets you so frequently bestow upon him throughout your Papers except you do it which I would not be so uncharitable as to think by way of Irony In your First Paragraph you express a Liking of the Complexion of his Book and I perceive you mean that it pleaseth you to find it not written in a heat and that there is nothing of a Censorious or Peevish humour or of a haughty contempt of those he deals with therein exprest And he hopes that upon the same accounts you are no less pleased with the other Resolutions of Cases which bear this company But he thinks it no mighty Attainment to be able in writing to manage a Controversie Coolly and Sedately without bitter or provoking Reflexions or contemptuous Expressions Though men of warm Tempers may find it somewhat difficult to govern their Spirits and Passions as it becomes them in the heat of disputing by word of mouth one would think that a small measure of Humility or Good nature or of Discretion and Prudence should make it no hard matter to acquire that other Attainment And much more that no one who is a Christian in Spirit and Temper as well as in Notion and Profession can find it a difficult thing to arrive at it But enough of this In your Second Paragraph you seem to intimate that our Author might have spared his pains in dwelling so long upon the Distance between our Church and the Church of Rome in points of Doctrine But he is not satisfied with the reasons you give for the needlesness of so doing Your reasons are two First because he argued chiefly for Communion in Worship And Secondly you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish nor our Church reflected on as symbolizing with that Idolatrous Church in Points of Doctrine But these reasons have not convinced our Author that he is over long upon this Argument for it was not his design to shew that our Church doth not symbolize in Points of Doctrine with that of Rome but that She stands at greatest defyance with that Church Not that She doth not teach her Corrupt Doctrine in her Articles but that she designedly confutes them and exposeth the falsity and corruption of them And this surely was worth the shewing in so many instances for their sakes who never read or considered those Articles as I fear very few of the Dissenters have done And whereas you say you never met with the Doctrinal part of the 39 Articles charged as Popish and it would be strange if you had I say there is too great cause to suspect that very few of our Dissenting Brethren do understand how Anti-popish they are though they do not charge them as Popish And I doubt you have met with many I am sure very many are to be met with who have reflected upon our Church as an Idolatrous Church though you never heard her accused as symbolizing with the Idolatrous Church of Rome in Points of Doctrine But they will find it somewhat hard to understand how a Church can be Idolatrous in matters of Practice and yet be pure in her Doctrine from any tang of Idolatry Surely her Practices must be grounded upon her Doctrines or they would be strange Practices indeed And it would be wonderfull if she should Practise Idolatry and yet Believe nothing that tends to the encouragement of that soul Sin nay believe and teach all those Doctrines that are as Opposite to Idolatry as Light to Darkness So that I conceive nothing could be more to our Author's purpose than to endeavour to remove that prejudice of many against the Constitution of our Church which is grounded upon an Opinion of its being near of kin to Popery And what could signifie more to their Conviction that there is not any ground for such an Opinion than the shewing how abhorrent to Popery our Church is in her Doctrine and what a testimony she beareth in her Articles against the Idolatrous and Superstitious Doctrines of the Romish Church and the Practices which she foundeth upon those Doctrines As to the several Additions you say may be made to the Anti-popish Doctrines contained in the 39 Articles our Author conceives he was not guilty of any Oversight in not preventing you because some of them are not properly Anti-popish but contrary to the Doctrine of other Sects which are to be found among Abhorrers of Popery as well as Papists and others of them our Author hath not omitted but if you 'll look again you may find them in their proper places Viz. those Doctrines contained in Artic. VI. and Artic. XI This under the head of Doctrines flatly contradicting the Holy Scriptures pag. 9. That under the head of the Authority on which each of the two Churches founds its whole Religion pag. 18. Now I hope by this time you understand very well what our Author would have you conclude from this first part of his Performance which you say you do not well understand And whereas you ask whether it be that the 39 Articles have in them nothing of kin to Popery as to matters of Faith And add that you dare say there is not a judicious Dissenter in England will say they have I answer if there be any injudicious Dissenters in England that will say they have I hope these poor people ought not to be so despised as that we should use no means for the undeceiving of them But our Author would have you conclude that he hath done what he designed which is as hath been already said not to shew that the 39 Articles have nothing of kin to Popery but that they are most abhorrent from it and that our Church is at the widest and vastest distance from Popery in her Doctrinals and consequently one would think too in matters of Practice But our Author does not satisfie himself to prove this by this consequence but goes on to shew it in the particular instances of matters of Practice after he had done it in Points of Doctrine To return now to your Second Page You say that it is mightily Satisfactory to you to hear our Author assuring you that our Church alloweth her Members the judgment of Discretion c. But Sir you needed no Authors to assure you of this since our Church hath done it as fully as it can be
obliged to them for their Separation But 3. I am well assured that you will never be able to make good this charge or any part of it against any number of the Divines of our Church For I who know I am confident as many of them as most men in England can truly declare as followeth That I cannot name any one Divine of our Church who teacheth your First contradictory Doctrine to the 39 Articles viz. That although we may not terminate our worship in an Image yet we may bow down and worship the true God before an Image Nor your Second viz. That departed Saints know our states here upon Earth and are praying to God for us and therefore we may pray to them Nor know I any one of our Church who teacheth your Third viz. That any Priest may absolve by commission from God more than declaratively I mean I know no one that maketh the Priest's Absolution to be other in Effect than declarative though it signifies more than if pronounced by a Layman Nor your Fourth That the Natural Body and Bloud of Christ is in the Elements of Bread and Wine really Our Church-Catechism saith that The Body and Bloud of Christ are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithfull in the Lord's Supper And I know no Divine of ours that explaineth this otherwise than thus That Believers feed on the Body and Bloud of Christ in the Lord's Supper as truly and really as they do on the Elements but not after a corporal and carnal manner but after a spiritual viz. by applying to themselves the Benefits of Christ's death by faith And I presume you will neither assert this to be Popish Doctrine nor deny that 't is true Doctrine Nor do I know any one of our Divines that holds your Fifth Proposition for it may not be called a Doctrine viz. That our Conformable Congregations are no better than Conventicles where the Minister reads not the Communion Service at the Altar Which you assert to be tantamount to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown Tongue because in multitudes of Congregations the People cannot hear a line from him I say I know of no Divine of our Church that ever asserted that such Congregations as the forementioned are no better than Conventicles There was indeed lately a foolish Book published to Prove them Conventicles but it is strongly conjectured that this Book was written by a certain Layman And what Church he is of I cannot say nor is it a pins matter to know But I may as much suspect him to be a Protestant Dissenter as a Popish upon the score of that his Position it being nothing of kin to the allowing of Prayers in an Vnknown tongue For as there is not One of your Multitudes of Congregations wherein the People cannot hear a line from him that reads at the Communion Table except you mean wherein every one of the People cannot for I doubt not the Major part can in all where the Minister hath a voice to be well heard from the Pulpit so all that is read is known before to those who are not Strangers to our Prayers or at least they may have Books to enable them to go along with the Minister whether they can or cannot hear distinctly one sentence from him Nor do I know any one of our Divines that hath ever taught your 6th Doctrine That whole Christ is under each Element which you intimate is the onely foundation on which the Sacrilegious Romish Practice stands But if I could believe that Doctrine to be true I should notwithstanding judge it an intolerable thing to refuse the Cup to the Laity against the express Institution of our Lord. Nor know I any Divine of our Church guilty of the 7th particular of your Charge viz. That there are those who interpret the Ten Commandments so as that he who will ever be saved must do a great many works of supererogation And if I did know any one that so interpreted the Commandments as to make any one such work necessary to Salvation I would not call him a Papist for it but an Ignoramus who understands not the word Supererogation Nor know I any one that teacheth Original Sin thereby understanding Corruption of Nature to be rather our Misfortune than our Fault which is your 8th Doctrine Nor consequently that Concupiscence is no sin which is your 9th Nor your 10th That man hath a power in his own will to chuse and doe what is spiritually good i. e. without the Assistence of Divine Grace And with this Assistence I hope you Dissenters do all hold it Nor know I any one of our Divines who teacheth That we are not accounted righteous before God or Justified onely for the Merits of Christ that is that there is any other Meritorious cause of our Justification besides the Active and Passive obedience of Christ Nor your 11th That we are not Justified by Faith alone Understanding by Faith not a dead but a living Faith that purefies the heart and works by love Nor your 12th That good works must go before justification and are not the fruits of Faith but Faith it self For I know no one of our Church that asserts more than this that a sincere Resolution to obey all God's Commandments must in order of nature go before Justification Nor your 13th That there is no Eternal Predestination of persons to life and the means tending thereunto I know of none of our Church that have ever taught this Doctrine as you have expressed it nor any worse than this That Eternal Predestination to life is not Irrespective or Absolute which no Article of our Church saith it is And Abundance of you Dissenters hold this Doctrine as well as Church of England men And thus have I gone over all the Doctrines contradictory to the 39 Articles taught by your Ecclesia Loquens yours I say for she is not ours and I declare again that I know of no Divine of our Church that teacheth or holdeth such Doctrines If you know any as one would think you do very many I pray name them You say we spare any names in these cases but be you entreated not to spare them But if you won't be prevailed with we shall very shrewdly guess at the reason Sir to deal freely with you I cannot but wonder at your adventuring into the World this other Celeusma since the Author of the former had so ill success and must needs have repented him heartily of that Undertaking All that have consideratively read his Answerer I am confident are convinced that after a Great Cry Little Wooll appeared or rather none at all Nor can such be ignorant what foul play was used to make our Divines of the Church of England broach Heresie And I doubt not but you your self have blushed at it if you have ever read the Parallela imparia five Specimen fidei Celeusmaticae Could you catch us thus dealing with the Books of your Authors as ours have been
dealt with by that Author and some others that might be named we should at another kind of rate have been exposed than they have been But Sir for God's sake let us make as much Conscience of vile Calumny than which there is not a more express Transgression of the Law of God nor of the very Light of Nature as of Obedience to Authority in such things as no Divine Law can be produced against and nothing but strained and far-fetcht Consequences And for God's sake also let us at length be perswaded to have so great a concern for our common Religion as to give over exposing it by such unchristian doings to the Scorn and Derision of our Common Enemy But I cannot take my leave of this heavy Charge of yours till I have asked you what you inferr from thence on supposition you can make good proof of it It is plain your design in all this talk is to justifie if not a total yet a partial Separation You do indeed to conceal nothing of your Candour after all acknowledge That you are very far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens that in these things are of another mind And therefore I hope you will not excuse Separation from their Churches Nay you say That hundreds of the Speaking Church are as we believe as far from symbolizing with the Church of Rome you mean in Doctrine as the Articles And that in this thing a Separation from the Silent as well as this part of the Speaking Church must needs be highly Sinfull And in thus declaring you condemn the generality of those that Separate it being well known that Communion with those whom you will acknowledge to be Orthodox Divines and those which you account Heterodox is much alike boggled at But I fear when all is done you condemn onely separation in Heart from these Orthodox men your Undertaking in your 8th Page makes me fear this viz. That all the Valuable persons in Presbyterian and Independent Congregations shall give any reasonable assurance that they are not in Heart divided from a Single Person in the Church of England that speaketh in matters concerning Doctrine as our Church doth in her Articles But if you think that all the Communion you are obliged to hold with these Divines is onely that of the Heart that is thinking them Orthodox and loving them as such but allow it to be lawfull to refuse to worship God with them nay and not so much as to hear them we thank you for nothing This is such Church Communion as will well consist with rending and tearing the Church in pieces But I pray do not think that all this while I take it for granted that 't is lawfull to separate from the Congregations of those Divines whom we take to be in some points Heterodox Nay upon supposition that your Ecclesia Loquens did as generally depart from the Doctrine of our Church as the Pharisees in our Saviour's time did from the Law of Moses I shall be far from granting that Separation from their Congregations is lawfull except there be a constraint laid upon us to subscribe to their Heterodox Opinions till you can prove that our Saviour allowed of the Jews Separation from the Pharisees which you never can but the contrary who cannot shew He bad his Disciples indeed to beware of the Leaven of the Pharisees and so are we to beware of the Leaven of such Heterodox Teachers but not so to beware of it as not to come within their Churches for that that caution of our Saviour is not to be so interpreted appears not onely from his own practice who was far from being a Separatist from the Jewish Temple or Synagogues and by what he saith Mat. 23. 2 3. In the last Paragraph of your 9th Page you return to speak more directly to our Author And first you reflect upon these words in his Book p. 24. But I am so far from taking it for granted that a Church is guilty of Sin in agreeing in some indifferent things with the Church of Rome that I must needs profess I have often wondered how this should become a Question Seeing whatsoever is of an indifferent nature as it is not commanded so neither is it forbidden by any Moral or Positive Law and where there is no Law there is no Transgression c. To this you say that it is an obvious begging the Question And it might be so if our Author stopt here but he thus proceeds And whereas certain circumstances will make things that in themselves are neither Duties nor Sins to be either Duties or Sins and to fall by Consequence under some Divine Command or Prohibition I have admired how this Circumstance of an indifferent thing being used by the Church of Rome can be thought to alter the nature of that thing and make it cease to be indifferent and become sinfull So that this is the Obvious meaning of our Author's words that he hath wondered how it should become a Question whether a Church may lawfully agree in some things with the Church of Rome which the Law of God hath not forbidden And whereas somethings that are not forbidden by the Law of God directly are notwithstanding forbidden thereby Consequentially he hath admired how the more Circumstance of a thing 's being practised by the Church of Rome can speak it to be forbidden by God's Law Consequentially And then he immediately betakes himself to the consideration of some of those Laws given to the Israelites that prohibit their imitating the Doings of the Egyptians and Canaanites which are urged by Nonconformists to prove it unlawfull to imitate the Church of Rome in things of a mere indifferent nature and that that circumstance of their being practised by that Church makes them cease to be indifferent and to become Sinfull And endeavours to shew that this cannot with any shew of reason be gathered from these Laws And how I pray is this an Obvious begging of the Question which is Whether a Church's symbolizing or agreeing in some things with the Church of Rome be a warrant for separatian from the Church so agreeing This I say is the Question which our Author handles But you next make a Question for him and say it is this Whether a thing in its own nature indifferent be still indifferent as to Christians use in God's worship when it hath been once used in Idolatrous Services if the use of it be neither Naturally necessary to the worship of God as it is an humane Act nor suitable to the Ends of it nor such without which it cannot in common judgment be decently performed But our Author much more wonders how this should become a Question than how that of his own propounding should For First There are three apparent Contradictions in it It being a contradiction to say concerning the same thing that it is in its own nature indifferent and yet naturally
necessary to the Worship of God as it is an humane Act. It being so too to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet Vnsuitable to the Ends of Divine Worship It being a contradiction again to say of the same thing that 't is in its own nature indifferent and yet such as without which the Worship of God cannot in common judgment be decently performed For you must mean by things in their own nature indifferent things that are so in Divine Worship for otherwise you trifle egregiously in putting this Question or make your Nonconformists so to doe for whom you put it But you abuse them if you do so for that which divers of them do assert and which occasioned our Author's Resolution of the Case of Symbolizing c. is this That things which might otherwise be lawfully used in the Worship of God do become unlawfull by their having been abused in Idolatrous or Superstitious Services And some of them do understand this in a more limited and restrained sense as our Author hath shewed than others of them do Secondly as this Question is put you are sure to have no Adversaries For who ever doubted whether a thing be unlawfull in the Worship of God that is Vnsuitable to the Ends thereof whether this thing hath been abused or no in Idolatrous Services Now having thus strangely put the Question you proceed to shew that from thence will follow several things as things out of controversie betwixt us And I perceive you are very cautious herein of reviving a certain Old controversie among your selves viz. Whether our Old Churches Bells and Fonts c. may still be used For you thus word your third particular wherein we are agreed viz. That things of mere conveniency for a Religious Action for the Service of the Ends of it may be used though Idolaters have used the like you are shy I perceive of saying the same so as none scruple the using of Churches to meet in c. You say not none scruple the using of the Old Churches which were built by Papists In your next Page you tell our Author that you think that Zanchy's Rule is at least Safest and that he knows that in dubiis animae tutior pars est eligenda But I think you might have Englisht it better than thus in matters of Sin the Safest part is always to be preferred For in matters of Sin or sinfull matters in my silly judgment there is no safest part to be preferred Next you positively assert that in matters of Divine Worship if the things used by Idolaters be not necessary both the abuse and the use also ought to be abolished And you say you cannot understand what else is the meaning of the Apostle in that his Application of the words found Psal 24. 1. in 1 Cor 10. 28. viz. If any man say unto you this is offered in Sacrifice unto Idols Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake For the Earth is the Lord's and the fullness thereof c. That is you say you shall not need to starve though you do not eat of that meat c. To this I answer that our Author hath freely acknowledged pag. 36. That all things of an indifferent nature that have formerly been abused to Idolatry or Superstition ought to be taken away by the Governours whensoever they find their People inclined again so to abuse them At least if such abuse cannot probably be prevented by other means But our Author utterly denies that those Rites which our Church retaineth that have been abused and are still by the Church of Rome have been observed to be any temptation to Idolatry or to the embracing of Popery And therefore there is upon this supposition no Argument to be drawn from that Text against the Sinfulness of using those Rites because the Apostle there forbids the Strong Christian the eating of that meat which a Weak Christian shall inform him was a portion of an Idol-sacrifice for this reason lest he be confirmed in or betrayed to the sin of Idolatry by his example not rightly understood by him And consequently this Christian is supposed to be such a weak one as would be in danger of making this ill use of his Example as being but lately converted from Paganism and not yet sufficiently instructed in the precepts of Christianity It is manifest from the immediately following verse that the Apostle forbiddeth the eating of meat offered to Idols upon this sole account For saying in the former verse Eat not for his sake that shewed it and for Conscience sake he adds in the latter that he means not that he should forbear for the sake of his own Conscience but onely for the sake of the others Conscience If therefore you can prove that these Rites of our Church are Temptations to any of its Members to go over to the Romish Church or to commit Idolatry still continuing therein you shall be so far from being opposed by our Author that he 'll heartily join with you in endeavouring by all lawfull means to have them abolished on supposition that the Temptation cannot otherwise be taken away But I desire you by the way to take notice that it is not the Design of his Book which you could not but see though you would seem not to see it to plead for the continuance of these Rites as innocent and harmless things at least as he takes them to be but onely to perswade Dissenters not to separate from our Church upon the account of such things and to shew that their having been abused is no just ground for Separation And having minded you of this I shall not need to tell you that the other Old-Testament Text which you have added to those which he hath replied to is alledged very impertinently which yet we 'll bestow two or three words in answer to But first let us see what you reply to what he saith to these Texts You say you cannot possibly get leave of your self considering under what terms of Divine Abhorrence God every where mentioneth Idolatry in Holy writ c. to be of the mind of our Author that the Texts Lev. 19. 2. Deut. 14. 1. Lev. 19. 19. are merely to be understood of things in themselves evil Nor by the way is our Author of that mind for he acknowledgeth pag. 27. that the things forbidden in the last of these places are things of so indifferent a nature that none can be more indifferent But he asks where it is said that these things were forbidden because the Heathens used them And he addeth that though Maimonides saith that the Egyptians used these Mixtures of Seeds and of Linnen and Woollen in many of their Magical Exploits yet 't is universally acknowledged that these things among many others were forbidden to the Jews as Mystical instructions in Moral duties But to this you are perfectly silent But why cannot you be of our
would speak to the purpose you should have said and proved that so are Church of England-men either universally or generally 4. Our Author saith that there was little hope of reclaiming the Jews any other way You say there is as little hope of reclaiming the Papists from their Idolatry of the Cross But I will not a third time repeat the same Answer Onely I will ask whether there be any hope of reclaiming the Papists from their Idolatry by our laying aside our Ceremonies 5. Our Author saith that although the Brazen Serpent had been a thing onely defiled in Idolatrous Services yet we freely grant that it ought to have been destroyed or removed out of the peoples sight if the continuance of it in their view were like to be a snare to them and a temptatâ—â—â— to Idolatry You reply may not the like be said of what Dissenters plead against But you have been already told that the like may not be said with any colour or shew of reason 6. Our Author saith That if Hezekiah had let it stand private persons might have made use of it to put them in mind of the wonderfull mercy of God expressed by it to their Fore-fathers This you acknowledge but say that the Question at present under our debate is whether Hezekiah might lawfully have let it stand and removed it into the Temple whether his setting it up by the Ark or Mercy Seat would have purged it But for shame Sir do not say that this is the Question in debate between us In your 16th Page you express very great offence at those next words of our Author pag. 36. And much more might they have lawfully continued in the Communion of the Church so long as there was no constraint laid upon them to join with them in their Idolatry But you leave out what follows viz. as we do not reade of any that separated from the Church while the Brazen Serpent was permitted to stand as wofully abused as it was by the Generality And do you find that the pious Jews did separate upon this account Or if they did not will you say that they were guilty of Sin For my part I dare not say so nor that it would be a sin now not to separate from our Church though our Governours were so remiss as not to Excommunicate Idolaters if such were sound therein any more than it is so upon the account of Promiscuous Congregations and Mixt Communions As the Worthy person that published the Resolution of that case hath clearly proved and proved too that it is Vnlawfull to separate upon that pretence But you say you can never believe this till some can prove to you that a Wife may lawfully contrary to the command of her Husband stay in a Family of Whoremongers provided that she be not compelled to play the Whore I answer that a Wife may not lawfully though her Husband hath not expresly forbidden it stay in a Family consisting wholly of Whoremongers except to bear her Husband company and in that case it is her duty to stay But where hath Christ forbidden us to Communicate with a Church out of which Idolaters are not ejected though Idolatry be not enjoined You say he hath done it in those words Rev. 18. 4. Come out of her my people but I pray read on and you have an answer that ye be not partaker of her sins and that ye receive not viz. by partaking of her sins of her plagues And moreover I presume you will acknowledge that the Babylon which the Christians were commanded to come out of is the Idolatrous Church of Rome But I need not acquaint you that you cannot continue in this Church except you will your self also be an Idolater But I will not stand to dispute this point with you it being nothing to the business of our Author's Book and all he asserts as to this matter doth amount to no more than this That we are not obliged to renounce Communion in pure Ordinances with such as we know to be guilty of Idolatry when it lies not in our power to keep them away And now you have brought me to our Author's Third Head of Discourse viz. That the Agreement which is between the Church of England and the Church of Rome is in no wise such as will make Communion with the Church of England unlawfull You say Page 17th That if our Author had said all Communion viz. with the Church of England is not unlawfull you had fully concurred with him believing that this Church cannot be justly charged with Idolatry and that some Communion may and ought to be held with any Church that is not so charged If you mean by some Communion a not being divided in heart as you before express it I say again we thank you for nothing the Communion which our Author pleads for being as your self observes in your first Page chiefly Communion in Worship But you proceed saying but as he hath laid it I cannot agree with it I am sure Christ had Communion with the Jewish Church and I believe he had so in all acts of worship of his Father's Institution and I am as sure he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their worship as I am that he would not himself practise what he condemned so severely But are you not as sure that our Blessed Lord had Communion with the Jewish Church in all acts of worship instituted by his Father as you are that he had no Communion with them in the Traditional part of their Worship I am sure that in the former part of that saying you are too too cautious and in the latter not so cautious as you ought to have been For you may be sure of the contrary to what you affirm so positively when you have considered that our Lord could not have so freely been admitted into the Temple had he not observed divers Traditions or Canons of the Elders without complying with which none might come thither I shall not stand to instance in particulars but refer you to Dr. Leightfoot's Temple Service pag. 115. to 120. And again you may yet be more sure of the contrary when you have considered how our Lord complied with Jewish Traditions in the celebration of the Passover and such too as altered certain circumstances prescribed in its First Institution Particularly his ordering the Preparation of the Lamb on the 14th day when Moses ordained the taking of it up upon the 10th day His eating the Passover lying along being the posture in which they ate their ordinary Meals according to a Jewish Tradition as you may see in Dr. Leightfoot's foresaid Book pag. 143 144. whereas according to Moses his Institution it was to be eaten with their Loins girded c. and in haste or standing His complying with the Jewish customs of drinking Wine at the Passover and concluding with the Hallel or a Hymn And not these onely but more Traditions than these Dr. Leightfoot will
Service instead of one very long one I must take leave to say this is more Wantonness And whereas you say you cannot condemn Dissenters if they be a little stumbled at it I say to be stumbled at it so as to make it one pretence for not joining with us in our Prayers is not to be a little stumbled at it And you know that that which our Author is concerned to doe is to perswade Dissenters not to be so much stumbled at any thing in our Prayers as to leave our Communion upon the account thereof Though he would be very glad to have them so well pleased with all of them as not to be in the least stumbled at any of them The Second instance is The Peoples bearing a part with the Minister in Divine Service And whereas our Author hath thought it enough to transcribe what Mr. Baxter hath said in five particulars to vindicate both the Lawfulness and Fitness hereof you reply not one word to any of them But you think you have balanced as your word is those five with five of your own 1. You say These Responses do not suit the gravity and solemnity of Divine Worship But we say they do and our yea is as good as your nay 2. You say many read false oftentimes And whose fault is it if they do But it appears from what is coming that you cannot prove it 3. You say Many Children and Girls understand not what they doe And therefore why do you permit them to join in Singing And why do you suffer them to hear Sermons 4. Those that cannot read you say are not edified in a confused noise not being able to understand what is read And then I hope you might have spared your second particular for those that read falsely cannot then be observed so to doe in this confused noise 5. You say Many leud and profane persons are thus made to bear their share in the Ministerial part of Publique Worship c. But do you prove that this is bearing a share in that part of Publique Worship which is proper and peculiar to the Minister and then we will grant that not onely no profane men but no Lay-men neither be they never so good may have their part therein 6. You say There is no such practice in the Churches of God in New England Scotland France Holland c. Do you think that our Author hath taken the Solemn League and Covenant that you urge such an Argument as this to him If you do you are much mistaken Sir But Mr. Baxter tells you in his fifth particular That it was the decay of zeal in the people that first shut out the Responses And therefore those Churches you mention should doe well to imitate ours in this particular I am constrained Sir to tell you again that I am ashamed of taking any notice of such talk as this The Third instance is The taking of some of the Collects out of the Missal You say you wish our Author had told us how many But I say 't is not worth the knowing if it were I could soon tell you if those that are taken thence are all good ones And considering what hath been said this is a sufficient Answer Remember our Author hath told you that our Departure from the Church of Rome was designed to be a Reformation not a total Destruction and Extirpation And I suppose the zeal of some Reformers that hurried them upon making no discrimination between things faulty and those that were innocent occasioned that honest saying of Zanchy's which I have heretofore somewhere met with viz. Non intelligo istam Reformatorum Mundi Theologiam As to that which follows to the last Paragraph of pag. 23d Enough abundantly hath already been said to satisfie you that you might have spared it Onely let me once for all tell you that whereas both here and elsewhere you insist upon our being at perfect liberty as to the using or not using those unnecessary things wherein we symbolize with the Church of Rome you ought to know that while they are Enjoyned we who are under Government are not at liberty as the Christians in the Apostles days were as to the Eating of Meats c. And whereas you touch here upon the topick of Scandal I can not hope to satisfie you about this Point if the two late judicious Resolutions of that Case cannot do it To which I refer you and ought so to doe it not falling within our Author's Undertaking The Fourth instance is The Appointing of Lessons out of the Apocryphal Books And what you say under this head amounts to thus much that you think it were better if they were not appointed And therefore I perceive you are not for making this a Pretence for Separation and Consequently you can have no controversie with our Author about it Whether it were better or not that we should imitate the Primitive Church in reading them now and then on Holy-days and ordinary Week-days merely for Example of life and instruction of Manners but not for the Establishing of any Doctrine let it be left to our Superiors to judge But though you have a greater latitude than many other Dissenters as to this matter yet you say that all should not be forced out of their wits nor made to doe what they cannot as well as you apprehend lawfull No God forbid that any one should be forced out of his wits upon such an account But whom can you name that hath had the least trouble given him for not being at Church on a Week-day Holy-day But I must take notice of one more passage before I proceed viz. Holy-days are the same with Sabbath-days with those who judge that there is nothing but Tradition for either Here is a good Wipe for our Author But I pray Sir did he say that there is nothing but Tradition for the Observation of the Sabbath He said that indeed pag. 10th from whence it may be inferred that he believes that the Apostolical institution of the Observation of the Lord's day is wholly to be gathered from the uninterrupted Tradition or Practice of the Catholick Church and is that such a small matter to found it upon When 't is the foundation on which is built the Canon of the Holy Scriptures But who are they that tell you that from the Uninterrupted Tradition of the Catholick Church may be gathered the Apostolical institution of the Other Holy-days Name any one if you are able that so saith or that saith that they are of Apostolical institution Now we are come to those particular Rites and Ceremonies of our Church in which our Author saith pag. 15. Our symbolizing with Popery is so much condemned And you say pag. 24th that he observeth in the general 1. That our Ceremonies are not the hundredth part you should have added scarcely of those used by the Papists And this you grant but you add that we may as well Symbolize in thirty as in three
Separation in these three Cases is Lawfull if not Necessary Your First case is When such errours are in the Constitution of a Church as if they had been known before ought to have hindered Vnion with it But you do not tell us what Errours those are Would you have your Readers take it for granted that there are such Errours in the Constitution of the Church of England But we may guess at one of those Errours in our Constitution from that which you say pag. 30. viz. That Governing Churches must have proper Officers which cannot be unless elected by the Governed who could never part with their Right in chusing Officers c. But what Right they have you will soon learn from the Reverend Dean Stilling fleet in his Vnreasonableness of Separation pag. 307 c. There you will find they have no Right at all or I am much mistaken From what you say in these two Pages and that which follows in which your discourse is such that 't is hard to say certainly what you would be at I shrewdly conjecture that you believe it Lawfull to separate from the Church of England although she had neither Ceremonies nor Liturgy to score men away Your Second case is When a Church is turned Idolatrous that then it is necessary to depart from it And here we have no Controversie Your Third is When a Church will not admit a man's abiding in it unless he will doe something which his Conscience tells him is sinfull But Sir will you not acknowledge that it cannot justifie our Separation that something is required which we judge sinfull whilst we will not impartially use all means for the duly informing of our judgments whilst we call it a running into Temptation to read what is offered us in Defence of the Lawfulness of that we have a prejudice against Whilst we so confide in our own judgments or in the judgments of our Party as not to bear to hear that 't is possible we should be mistaken Surely all truly good men will acknowledge this You say in all these Cases Separating is Lawfull if not Necessary For in the two first Cases we ought to Separate And then I hope in those cases it is Necessary and not onely Lawfull to Separate in the last we may prudently and warily depart c. And why do you so mince the matter by changing your phrase when your meaning is that you may Separate And why do you so mince is too in saying in the two first Cases we ought to Separate which supposeth that in this Case you are at your Liberty and that though you may lawfully Separate yet it is not a necessary duty so to doe And why again do you say we judge this no sinfull Separation Why don't you speak out and say 't is a Necessary one Except you think that a man may lawfully act against his Conscience But you have given me sufficient assurance in your Book that this you do not think You say pag. 33. If any others in former Ages or in our own have had any other apprehensions of the significancy you would have said signification of the Terms Church Schism and Separation whom we own to have been Holy and Excellent men till we see their Notions justified from Holy Writ which alone can determine these things we must crave leave to dissent from them and believe that had they lived in our times they would have dissented from their own Apprehensions under a more perfect light c. But 1. What would you have said to us if we had given this Answer to your citing Holy and Excellent men such as Calvin whom our Author hath so often appealed to in his Book and others against our Notions I am sure you would have severely upbraided us with having a wonderfull opinion of our own judgments Especially if our Notions ran counter to all Antiquity and the Judgments of all Holy Excellent men in former Ages and to the generality of such in our own Age and Time But this I dare say may be asserted of your Notions concerning the Terms Schism and Separation and much of your talk concerning the Term Church too 2. How came you to have more light than the Holy and Excellent men in former Ages and in our own Age too which you plainly suppose your selves to have Nay you suppose this as to multitudes of such persons also as are your Contemporaries For you say pag. 7. We are far from thinking that there are not multitudes of Holy and Learned men in our Ecclesia Loquens c. that is Among Conformable Divines of the Church of England 3. This Answer would far better become the Quakers than you they pretending to inspiration which you do not I will now conclude with a Remarque or two on those words with which you begin the concluding part of your Book You say pag. 29. And now how happy should we not onely think our selves but indeed be would our Brethren but leave disputing how far it is lawfull for the Spouse of Christ to have Communion with the Great Whore and onely argue how far we come short of symbolizing with the First and Purest Gospel Churches of which we have Records in Holy Writ To this I say 1. How Unaccountable is this Charge you lay against your Brethren when you know that they are in as perfect a Separation as your selves from the Communion of that Apostate Church which you mean by the Great WHORE 2. It lieth not in your power to shew us a Church which more symbolizeth with the First and Purest Gospel Churches than the Church of England And as for those Churches which you believe do come nearer to the First and Purest it hath often enough been demonstrated with invincible strength that the main thing viz. the point of Government in which you conceive they more agree with these Churches doth speak them far less to agree with them than the Church of England does And speaks them to be therein unlike to the whole Catholique Church of Christ for fifteen hundred years together from the time of the Apostles We do not pretend that the Constitution of our Church is absolutely perfect we do believe that such a Constitution is the peculiar privilege of the Church Triumphant but we bless God that 't is no more imperfect and we who live in complete Communion with this Church are well assured that there is nothing either in the Constitution thereof or in what is required thereby that hindereth us from being as good Christians as ever were in the world We cannot find after all the pains that you and others have taken to prove the contrary that there is imposed upon us any one condition of Communion that does contradict any Law of God that tends in the least to the depraving of our Souls to the gratifying of any one corrupt Affection or the making us unmeet for the Heavenly Happiness And this our Holy Martyrs thought as well as we And