and next parts were all to communicate with the Bishop and were no more than could meet to choose the Bishops and to be present as to the main body of them and disciplinary debates to give consent 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage a place of greatness and great numbers of Christians the Church was grown very great but not beyond the exercise of such personal Communion as I described And the Bishops there and round about being worthy men kept up the life of the former Discipline And as great as their Church was we would be glad of such an Episcopacy Order and Communion For I oft told you that by present Communion I meant not that all must meet in one place at once For the tenth part of some Parishes cannot But that as Neighbours and Citizens may have personal Converse and Meetings per vices of some at one time and some at another as different from meer mental Communion or by Synods or Persons delegate or as their Governours or Representatives and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine Worship and Conversation And that the footsteps of this remained long when worldly Reasons had made a change And all this I have proved so fully in my Treatise of Episcopacy besides what 's said in my Abstract of the Episcopal History that till some man shall confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought I have no more in Reason to do upon that subject And though the Doctors History of this be the most considerable part of all his Book yet so far doth he leave what I say uncontradicted that I find not one word that he saith against any of my Testimonies nor any for his own cause for the first two hundred years But when he should have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years he begins his historical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World and so proceeds to Augustine at above four hundred and Victor Uticensis about four hundred and ninety Theodoret four hundred and thirty where he supposeth me to say that of his City which I said of the Diocess of that City And to confute all Impertinencies and groundless Suppositions while my full proofs are unanswered is but loss of time Sect. 3. His chief argument is that no City how great soever was to have more Bishops than one Ans 1. He can prove no such Rule in the first two hundred years 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree Gratious de Imperio in Anotat and Dr. Hammond I cited who say that Cities at first had two Bishops in each Rome Antioch c. one of Jewish Christians and one of Gentile Christians and saith D. H. Peter at Rome was Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles and they had two Successors and saith Gretius The Churches were formed to the manner of the Synagogues and there were divers Churches with divers Bishops in the same City in 1 Tim. 5. 17. de Imp. p. 355 356 357. 3. In the fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Bishops with their several Churches at Antioch Flavian's and Evagrins should live together in Love and Peace 4. This was a good custom while there were in the Cities no more than one Bishop might take care of And the custom held when times altered the case and reason of it And Possession and the Desire to avoid division made it held up by good men 5. I have at large in my Treatise of Episcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Bishops to Cities and so did the old Churches that set up Chorepiscopos Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars Ans 1. Yes no doubt after the second Century and perhaps in two Cities a little before but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question But when I told him how this would agree us and hurt his cause he will quickly fall under his own censure and became a stranger to the history of the Church asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop This Sermon was written since his Irenicon And now he feigneth a distinction between An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop and for the place at which Christians did communicare But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop Was it not the material place of Communicn And so the members of the distinction are co-incident Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes corporis sanguimis Christi Each Church had long but one of these The best Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion but honorary of some Martyrs The truth is the phrase of unum Altare was taken up when each Church had but one but to set up Altare contra Altare continued after to signifie Anti-Churches But I have fully answered this in my Treatise of Episcopacy His conjectures from the numbers of Officers c. he may see there also sufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hist And the odd instance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popish Feigners And were that Epistle genuine a Cypher is easily dropt in by Corrupters It hath need of better authority that shall be so singular from the case of all other Churches And I suppose he knoweth that Cyrus was not a simple Bishoprick but a Metropolitane Seat and might have 800 Parish Bishops Yea whereas there were under Antioch seven Dioceses and fifteen Provinces or as others say thirteen that yet had many Bishops under them as Seleucia twenty four c. that were more dependant on Antioch Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per se subsistentes And therefore when Theodoret said how many Churches were under hands it 's like he meant Bishops Churches and not meer Presbyters and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account or else the Bishops had but single Congregations But for my part as the case so late concerneth me not so I see nothing to perswade me that that Epistle is genuine and uncorrupt But I would not have a Diocess which then had many Provinces or a Province which had many Bishops Churches be taken for a single Church Sect. 5. The same I say of Carthage which was the Metropolis of Africa and the first of six Provinces before
Justinian and of seven after and Proconsular and the Church called Africae Caput as August ep 162. The sixth and seventh Carthage Councils tell us of the distribution of the Provinces decreeing three Judges to be sent out of each Province viz. Carthage Numidia Byzacena Mauritania c. Yea Leo 9. P. in Epist ad Thom. c. saith that the Bishop of Carthage was post Pont. Rom. primus Archiepiscopus totius Africae maximus Metropolitanus Though yet Binnius truly say that in Cyprian's time he was not an Archbishop that is no proper Governor of Bishops because they concluded in Council nemo nostrum dicitur Episcopus Episcoporum but he was the chief of that great Province And the Dr. himself out of Victor mentioneth one Cresseus that had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him He was Metropolitane of Aquitana and a Diocess then having many Provinces how many be in a Diocess Victor there 〈◊〉 you that the Bishop of Carthage in his own Eugitane Province had one hundred sixty four Bishops And how great were their Churches then and L. 2. when he lamenteth the great number of their banished Bishops Presbyters aud the Church-members were 4976. And one Parish here hath 40000 if not more He that considereth that Cyrus was at most but 60 miles from Antioch the Patriarchal Seat and that a Carthage Council had sometimes 600 Bishops and the Donatists perhaps had as many and that as he saith Cresceus had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him and that Cyprian so often tells us how Bishops were chosen by all the People and how he managed his Discipline in the presence of all his Plebs Laity and by their consent and how he telleth that it was the peoples duty to separate from the communion of a sinning Bishop which implieth communion before and how the Bishops in Council put the question When a Church wanted a Bishop whether one of them that was a Bishop and had perhaps but one or two or three Presbyters was bound to part with one to that wanting Church to make a Bishop of and considereth the circuit and distance of their Cities and much more which I have elsewhere named may well believe large Provinces and larger Diocesses but will think of their Bishops Churches as we must do of theirs in Ireland when a late converted Countrey had six hundred Bishops Make but Christs true discipline practicable and tie us not to swear or assent to your uncertain forms and we should no further trouble you in this Sect. 6. As for the credit he giveth to Syrmondu's copy of Theodoret's Epistle or to the later Editions of his Works I am not bound to be as credulous nor to take the last Editions for the best when they come out of the Jesuits hands And can prove the Epistle to Joh. Antioch which Bellarmine would disprove to be more credible than this And it 's one blot that he saith Theodoret's Epist 6. mentioneth the Metropolitane he was under when he was under none but was himself an Independant Metropolitane For so the Notitiae Episc tells us was Berytus Heliopolis Laodicea Samasata Cyros Pompriopolis Mopsuestia and Adama If his Province was as the Epistle cited saith fourty Miles square and the Christians so numerous as is said and he name none of the Bishops under him but number the Churches it 's like they were Episcopal Churches and very small And that Villages had Churches it 's no wonder when there were many Chorepiscopi not only under the Metropolitanes but the City Bishops And why I must reject his long received Work if I question his late found Epistles I know not But again I say this is nothing to our cause being so long after the ages I mentioned my contrary evidence being not at all confuted His confidence p. 260 261. about some citations out of Theodoret runs upon false Insinuations 1. That the question is not of the number of Churches but about the extent of the Episcopal Power whether it was limited to one Parochial Church or extended over many when he knoweth that I had no such question but whether those whose power was over many Churches in the first two Centuries at least had not as many Bishops under them over those Churches if such there were Or if the Bishops were of the lowest rank whether those under were not then denyed to be Churches for want of Bishops and were not only parts of a Church 2. And he feigneth me to bring Theodorets Testimonies to prove that even then in Alex. and Antioch a Church was but one Congregation when I brought it only to prove that even in that age they were so small that the footsteps of the ancient shape of them still appeared Such Fictions may deceive them that will not try what is said but only read the answerer But by this citation I see he read my Treatise of Episc before his Book came out And therefore I will pass by these niblings till he answer it Sect. 7. p. 262. He accuseth me of Rage and Bitterness for saying that if he will plead for so much Presumption Profanation of Gods name Usurpation Uncharitableness and Schism as to own their Churches to be new and devised without Gods Authority and yet may in his name be imposed on the World and all Dissenters called Schismaticks I leave him And first he feigneth that I charge him with this which is untrue unless he will charge himself with it But why do I put in If you will so plead Ans Because he accused me for saying the contrary viz. that so to divise and so to impose is worse c. But because I know not why he accused so plain a truth I said If you do so But he now tells me that he quoted it to shew that I looked on all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mans devising which is another untruth confessed by himself who before had this up and cited my own words to the contrary viz. that I believe the Catholick Church and deny not National associated Churches nor Archbishops that put not down the particular Churches Pastors and Discipline one mistake is his excuse for another Had he meant as aforesaid had my words been Rage or necessary confutation Sect. 8. Yea it is his business in the very next page 263 to confute his own accusation of me by citing my own concessions And p. 264. he giveth me leave to call our Bishops Archbishops Ans But 1. Archbishops have Churches with their proper Bishops under them But our Bishops say that there are no such under them 2. I told you before that as the Major General Quartermaster General c. of an Army constituteth not a distinct body from the Army and the particular Regiments and Troops so I am not certain that Apostles or Evangelists or any general Preachers as such did constitute any Church Form distinct from the Catholick and the particular Bishops Churches But if they are supposed to have taken
which setleth humane Government and obedience chosen the name of Parents rather than Princes because Parents Government is antecedent to Princes and Princes cannot take it from them nor disoblige their Children But Self-government is more natural than Parents and Parents and Princes must help it but not destroy it 7. When persons want natural capacity for Self-government as Infants and Ideots and mad-men they are to be governed by force as bruits being not capable of more 8. Family Government being in order next to personal Princes or Bishops have no right to overthrow it at least except in part on slaves of whose lives they have absolute power If the King impose Wives Servants and Diet on all his Subjects they may lawfully chuse fitter for themselves if they can and at least may refuse unmeet Wives and Servants and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks 9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impose on all men the Bishops and Pastors to whose charge care and Pastoral conduct they must commit their Souls the people having the nearest right of choice and strongest obligation must refuse as discerning Self-governing judges such whose heresie negligence ignorance malignity or treachery is like either apparently to hazard them or to deprive them of that Pastoral help which they find needful for them and they have right to as well as other men 10. The gain or loss is more the Patients than the Imposers It is their own Souls that are like to be profited and saved by needful helps or lost for want of them And therefore it most concerns themselves to know what helps they chuse 11. If all the Kings on earth command men to trust their lives to a Physician who they have just cause to believe is like to kill them by ignorance errour or treachery or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them they are not bound to obey such mandates Yea if they know an able faithful Physician that is most like to cure them they may chuse him before an unknown man though the King be against their choice 12. Scripture and experience tell us that God worketh usually according to the aptitude of means and instruments and learned experienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant rash and slothful and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do And skilful able experienced holy Pastors convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men And means must accordingly be chosen 13. If the Pastoral work skilfully and faithfully done be needful it must not be neglected whoever forbid it If it be not needful what is the Church of England good for more than Infidels or at least than Moscovites And for what are they maintained by Tythes Glebe and all the dignities honours and wealth they have And for what do men so much contend for them 14. It is natural to generate the like and for men to do and chuse as they are and as their interest leadeth them Christ tells us how hard it is for a rich man to be saved and how few such prove good And the Clergy themselves do not say that all the Patrons in England are wise and pious Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accused And most Parliament men I think are Patrons Others say that most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments are worse Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication drunkenness excess idleness yea Atheism or infidelity If many or any be such are they like to chuse such Pastors as all godly men may trust in so great a Case Or would not such Princes chuse such Bishops 15. Men are as able and as much obliged now to take heed to whose conduct they trust their Souls as they were in all former Ages of the Church forecited 16. The Laws and Bishops of England allow all men liberty to chuse what Church and Pastor that Conformeth they please so they will but remove their dwellings into the Parish which they affect And in London thousands live as Lodgers and may easily go under whom they will chuse And if they like him not may shift as oft as they please 17. Parish bounds are of much use for Order But Order is for the thing ordered and not against it And Parish bounds being of humane make cannot justly be preferr'd before the needful edification and safety of mens Souls though such humane Laws bind where there are no greater obligations against them 18. The Law of keeping to Parish-Churches where we dwell and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Pastors and Princes of Bishops are of the same efficient power and strength 19. Casuists usually say even Papists that are too much for Papal power that humane Laws bind not when they are against the end the common good especially against mens salvation And a Toletan Council decreeth that none of their Canons shall be interpreted to bind ad culpam but ad poenam lest they cause mens damnation And many Casuists say that Penal Laws bind only to do or suffer and bearing the penalty satisfieth them save as to scandal 20. Yet we still acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety and so to see that due places countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Ministers and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers and submit to hear and learn And that they should restrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers from the sacred Office-work and judg who are to be maintained and who to be tolerated 21. But this power is not absolute but bounded And if on the pretence of it they would betray the Church and starve Souls like the English Canon that binds all from going to an able Pastor at the next Parish from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader men are not bound to obey it but to provide better for themselves unless materially not formally for some time when not obeying would do more hurt than good or as a man must forbear publick assemblies in a common Plague-time And so much to open the true reason of the case in hand And Paul's words to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 16. tell me this care is not unnecessary Take heed to thy self and to the doctrine and continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee § 17. come now to the Doctor 's words who p. 312. undertakes to prove 1. That the main ground of the peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon A Bishop must be blameless Ans The word main may do him service but no hurt to my cause Main signifieth not Only who doubts but the People were to discern the Lives of chosen persons But without coming to the Ballance among many causes which is the main I have proved that there were more And among others that Christ and his Apostles bid them take heed how they hear beware of false Prophets and their leaven beware of the concision A man
Uniformity came out of about 9000 Ministers that kept in and had laid by the Liturgy before about 7000 Conformed to the altered Liturgy before any of them ever saw it save a few by declaring their Assent and Consent the Act being known before the Book could be Printed and about 2000 were silenced by that Act. How they behaved themselves since then is so well known and I have here and oft declared and how the Plague first and the burning of the Churches next and the Kings Licenses next did give them the opportunities and calls which made more publick Preaching seem to them a duty that I shall not make recital of it § 5. All this while abundance of invectiues were poured out against them by many of the Conforming Clergy in Press and Pulpits and especially in the ears of great men to whom we had no access but seemed what such men described us to be The new Laws against Conventicles and the Oxford Act of Consinement had been added to the first Many were hunted up and down their Goods and Libraries distrained many were imprisoned some there died The Informers and Prosecutors grew weary They saw the severity came most from the Prelates and the Parliament the King being not for severity therein The Justices grew unwilling of Execution the Preachers reprove them and call on them to put the Laws in Execution they are greatly offended at the Kings Licenses they continue to accuse us for Schism at least and some of Sedition though we invaded none of their Temples nor askt them for any part of their maintenance And the Parliament and Prelates were so sharp against us that we durst not tell the world what we refused in Conformity and why lest we put them upon more severity nor indeed could we do it the Press was lockt up by so great penalties But while we were forced to silence we were lowdly called to to say what we stuck at and what it was that we would have And after 17 years such calls I ventured to name the things and hence is the storm of the present indignation § 6. I had before proved the wilful desertion of our Ministry especially when the King Licensed us to be odious Sacriledg To this I am told of mens power to silence such as they think deserve it I grant it if they truly think so so may they on just cause alienate Churches and Church-lands and hang Malefactors but not when no such cause is given nor at their pleasure § 7. When in the fitst Plea for Peace I had stated the case of our Nonconformity I intended to bring the Proofs of each particular supposed sinful as I after found occasion And meeting with abundance that accused us of disloyal rebellious Principles I largly delivered my own and many others judgment of Civil and Eccesiastical Authority the power of Princes and the duty of Subjects and therein also wrote some Answer to Four Accusations brought against us 1. That we pretend Grace against Morality 2. That we hold that things Indifferent became unlawful if commanded 3. I largly confuted Bishop Morley's false Accusation of my Doctrine of the Magistrates power to command things unlawful by accident and Dr. Parker's Doctrine of Scandal 4. I confuted them that extend our Non-conformity to things which we refuse not All this in the second Plea for Peace which none yet that I know of have answered § 8. And lest any should think that we are all for Negatives I wrote a Treatise of the only Terms of Universal Christian concord which I value above all the rest being assured that the Churches will never otherwise be healed than by that impartial sure and easie Catholick way which some have reviled but none since that I know of confuted One Learned Bishop that had a chief hand in our present Impositions and ejection I desired to tell me which is the way of Christian concord if this be not And he maintaineth That the only way is to obey the Colledg of Pastors who are to govern the Catholick Church through all the world per Literas formatas Where this Colledg as one governing power do meet or how they signifie their Majority of Votes and in what cases and who must gather the Votes from Abassia to Moscovie and in how long time and how they shall come to all men with certainty and whether the ejected silenced and excommunicated c. may appeal to them c. I could not learn § 9. In the same Book I sufficientiy confuted Mr. Dodwell's great Book which denyeth not only the Churches and Ministry which are not by uninterrupted Episcopal Ordination but also the ordinary salvation of all such Churches as having no covenant promise by valid Sacraments delivered them He hath pretended some defence in a late Book of Letters to which if they can be Printed I hope to give easily a satisfactory reply § 10. In the same book he Publisheth some old Letters of his to me for the Diocesan frame of Government the notice of which beforehand given me caused me to Publish a full Treatise of Diocesan Episcopacy containing the Reasons why we cannot swear to it or approve it or swear never to endeavour any reforming alteration of the frame here setled and exercised And whatever Mr. Dodwell pretendeth to the contrary if this Treatise do not fully answer his Letter and justifie us in this part of Nonconformity I am unable to judg of the Cause but am willing to recieve any better information § 11. And because I find false History not the least cause of ordinary mistakes and men cry up Diocesan Prelacy as the ancient and chief cure of Schism I gathered an Abstract of the history of Bishops and their Councils that the true matter of fact might not be so commonly mistaken as it is § 12. At the same time came out against me First a book of Mr. John Cheyneys the mistakes of which I manifested in an Answer And afterward old Letters of Mr. Hinkleys to which I had an old Answer which I cast by and now Published and another Accuser abounding with untruths called the Impleder and another called Reflections or Speculum c. And another Book of Mr. Cheneys full of most pitiful mistakes All which with Justice L'Estrange's Dialogue and someothers I answered together in a Book called the Third Defence ef the Nonconformists c. § 13. But the Accusations of Dean Stillingfleet in his Sermon made the loudest noise In the Answer to which I chiefly desired to have come to some understanding agreement with him about the true state of our Case and Controversie and to that end craved his answer to several necessary questions but was not able to procure it And now in his large Book where I hoped to have found an Answer to them I look for it in vain Yea though Mr. Hikeringhill roughly provoked him but to expound his own Text and tell us intelligibly what the same Rule is which the Apostle
p. 73. He acquits them from Schisme that separate if the Church be Schismatical 74. I desire the Reader then to Read my few Sheets called A search for the English Schismatick More mistakes p. 74 75. Chap. 6. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church The Doctors Schismatical Error Confuted p. 76. He by this condemneth Apostles and Evangelists that were Itinerant and unfixed such as Bucer de Regno Dei would have sent abroad my exceptions about Churches and Ministers justified and his Calumny detected p 80. Whether I give too much to the People or am against the Rights of Patrons or Magistrates p. 82. Many more Calumnies to p. 89. He accuseth me as accusing them for naming the sins that I dare not commit p. 89. More of his vain Accusations to p. 92. Whether he be for silencing us p. 92. More of his Calumny p. 99. Considerable Quere to him p. 94. How he would drive men to Separation p. 95 96. He is come to Self-condemning Gentleness in expounding his Rule and Text Phil. 3. 16. p. 97. His sad Ennumeration of the causes of just Separation p. 98. Chap. 7. He begins his Third Part with more false Accusations p. 99. His History for Diocesan Churches against Parochial found fallacious p. 100 c. His vain Plea for the English Frame p. 106 c. He saith It s probable while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few p. 108. And Dr. Hammond saith No Subject Presbyters whether John Fox were the Publisher or Prefacer of the Reformatio Legum c. p. 109. Discipline hard but not unnecessary p. 111. Chap. 8. What the National Church of England is fully discussed and the Doctors Self-contradictions detected He denyeth any true Political Church of England He and we more agreed than he and other high Church-men that are for a Constitutive Political Government p. 112 113 c. He maketh it an introduction of Popery to hold that a Church must have a Constutive Regent Church-power and so fasteneth Popery on the Masters of his cause Chap. 9. That the mutual Consent of Pastors and flock is necessary to the very being of their Relation About Thirty Proofs from Antiquity that the Universal Church was for about 1000 years of that mind and decreed it p. 128 c. The necessity of consent proved from the Nature of the work where the reasons of it are all plainly opened p. 133. c. The Doctors contrary surmises and false Histories fully confuted p. 136 c. Chap. 10. Of the imposed Use of the Cross in Baptisme and denying Baptisme to the refusers p. 153. His vaine excuses confuted Whether the Cross be used as a Sacrament His disingenuous falsifying my words of the use of Crucifixes and other Images p. 156 c. What the Papists ascribe to Sacraments p. 168. Chap. 11. Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicate Nonconformists for not Communicating when ipso facto Excommunicate be guilty of Schisme p. 163. Chap. 12. Of the English sort of Sponsors and the Exclusion of the Parents Duty p. 167. see more in the Postscript Chap. 13. Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth p. 171. Chap. 14. Epistles and Testimonies Compar'd with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Jo. Glanviles Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant With a Letter of his to the Author and a Digression about Dr. Lewis du Moulin his Published Picture and Death-bed Repentance A Postscript of five notices viz. 1. Of a new Observation of the Trade of taking mony to be Godfathers to Poor mens Children and missing Baptisme for want of mony 2. A Letter of Mr. W. Rathbands of his Fathers judgment and Practice 3. An Excellent Confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets History of the extent of Dioceses and Choice of Bishops fully proving that the old Bishops were Parochial or Congregational and always chosen by the People or not made theirs without their free Consent By a Learned and faithful Minister 4. An Excellent Vindication of the silenced Ministers by a Conformist c. 5. My Apologie for the Nonformists Preaching Written by me and Comming out with this ERRATA IN the Preface Sect. 17. line 13. read pleaded for l. 17. after Clergie and People add of â—â—â—â—â—iâ—â—â—sâ— So Evident is the right of Synods Clergie and People AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS c. CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformists especially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord about the true Nature of Schism and who is the Schismatick written by him at age in his most owned books and not in youth in his Irenicon I stand to all my words against Schism which he hath cited and so I doubt not but he stands to these following of his DIscourse of Idolatry of Rome p. 7. Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of destroys Salvation The Papists consent p. 43. I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest that hath the best groundâ— and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 194. 195. 1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to distruction For this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more But this is a principle of Natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of it or to contradict the end and designe of it 2. The Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church Pag. 216. 217. 1. It is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contâ—ine in them the unquestionable will of that God whom we are bound to serve and it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfyed in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easly a matter for men to mistake in the waies they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should enterpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God or do they think
that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Christianity And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours and corruptions be left out And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such abuses be reformed which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
Church wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some corruptions though if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it followes not that I am separated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches 'till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the Communion of all Mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again And if several other persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own safety And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say we do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant no one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssins may have some errors or corruptions yet if they be not fundamental and be not joyned as necessary to be approved in order to their communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully communicate with them it doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from error and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the communion of the Catholick Church Because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errors conditions of communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches Pag. 336. To rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwaies imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin But besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawfull that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary for separation is not lawfull but when it is necessary Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose beleif is necessary to Salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the beleif of fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is just and reasonable And it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause which is pleaded for it Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free like a Common field to all inhabitants Now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to that right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yeild their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Page 358. Although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herself and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the Party so limiting Communion As it was in the Case of the Donatists who were therefore charged with Schisme because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge that they were The sum of this discourse is that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsical and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church But still what ever Church makes such extrinsical things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yeild not to them is Schismatical in so doing For it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church And the saparation from it is so
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
are in all places of this Realm almost neglected the offender either nothing or little rebuked and sith the transgressors have no colour of conscience it is sin and shame to proceed against us first having also reasonable defence of our doings Charity my Lords would first have taught us Equity would first have spared us brotherliness would have warned us pity would have pardoned us if we had been found trespassers God is my witness who is the beholder of all faith I think of your Lordships honourably esteeming you as brethren reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the Congregation alas why have not you some good opinion of us why do you trust known Adversaries and mistrust your Brethren We confess one faith of Jesus we preach one doctrine we acknowledg one Ruler upon earth in all things saving in this we are of your judgment shall we be used thus for a Surplice shall brethren persecute brethren for a forked Cap devised singularity of him that is our enemy Now shall we fight for the Popes coat his head and body being banished shall the controversie so fall out in conclusion that for lack of necessary furniture as it is esteemed labourers shall lack wages Churches preaching shall we not teach shall we not exercise our Talents as God hath commanded us because we will not wear that which our enemies have desired and that by the appointment of Friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our Adversaries should laugh to see brethren fall together by the ears Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses Manasses Ephraim My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church the Crests and triumphs of Antichrist the laughter of Satan the sorrow and sighs of a number the misery and sequel of the Tragedy I write with zeal without proof of my matter at this time present but not without knowledge of it nor without grief of mind God move your Spirit at this present to fight against Carnem Circumcisionem immo Concisionem against Literam Legem which principally is now regarded and rewarded Speak I humbly beseech you to the Queens Majesty to the Chancellor and to Mr. Secretary and the rest that those proceedings may sleep that England may understand your zealous mind toward the worship of God your love toward the poor welwillers your hate toward the professed enemies your unity in true conformity the other neither be needful now neither exacted in any good age So shall the little Flock be bound to you so shall the great Shepherd be good to you An ANSWER to the false ACCUSATIONS and REASONINGS of the Dr.'s SECOND PART HEre the Dr. begins with the description of their principles whom he accuseth I am one of them And the first sort are those that hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant viz. at some times to be present and in some part of our worship and on particular occasion to partake of some acts of Communion with us but they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these though at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church The second sort are `` Such as hold any Communion with our Church unlawful And he pretends to proceed with all possible clearness Answ I am sorry if more clearness and truth is become impossible to him He taketh not me to be one of the second sort and therefore describeth me as of the first It s no presumption to say that I know my own mind and practice better than he doth though he would seem to know the old Nonconformists minds better than they did themselves Sect. 2. The matter of fact must first be notified 1. I ever distinguished the National Diocesan Parochial and Segregate Churches And the National as supposed organized or an Ecclesiastically political Society from the National as a Christian Kingdom and as an agreeing Association of Churches without any Governor of the whole Single or Aristocratical And I distinguished Diocesans that are as Arch-Bishops over lower Bishops and those that are like ours infimae speciei and I distinguished Parish Churches that have true Pastors from those that have none but uncapable men through insufficiency heresie malignity or as usurpers are not truly called 2. Accordingly I concluded 1. That the Parish Churches in England that have true Pastors are true political governed Churches 2. That though some would make them none by denying to the Pastors an essential part of their office and make the Bishop the sole Pastor and the rest but his Curates and the Parishes no Churches as having no Bishop but to be only as Chappels part of the lowest governed Church Diocesan and so give up the cause to the Brownists called Separatists yet truly such Parishes are true political Churches because the ordainer being but the investing Minister the office is not essentiated as he willeth or saith but as God the Instituter willeth and saith As the power of the Husband over the Wife is not what please the Priest that marryeth them but what pleaseth God who giveth it by his Law and as the Lord Mayor's power is not what please the Recorder or he that giveth him his Oath or Insignia but what the Kings Charter giveth and the Kings power is not what he will that Crowneth him and giveth him his Oath but what he hath right to by the constitution of the Kingdom so that the truth of the Parish Churches is soundly maintained by the Nonconformists and overthrown by many of the Diocesans But if the Parish Minister himself consent not to the essentials of his own office his Ministry may be valid to others while he is in the place but he is himself no true Pastor 3. All Parishes are no true governed Churches whose Ministers want any thing essential to a Pastor nor must be owned as such if known 4. But for the peoples sake they are true Churches secundum quid or equivocally as a company of Christians may be so called that have no Pastor and as such may be so far communicated with 5. I never spake against a Diocesan or Arch-Bishop that hath Parish Churches and true Pastors or Bishops under him and taketh on him no more than the Apostles did excepting their work properly Apostolical viz. by the Word and not the Sword to oversee and instruct inferior Pastors 6. When the Diocesans put down all lower Churches and true Pastors I own not that doing nor them in that form but I separate from them no further than they do from Christ 7. When they are but as good Arch-Bishops taking care of many Churches whether their Diocess shall be called a Church as such is but lis de nomine I find not that any Apostle as such was the constitutive Head of a Diocesan or Provincial Church or made any such above particular Churches
Nor do I find in the New Testament any political Church form but the Universal headed by Christ and particular ones governed by Pastors The General is the constitutive Head of his Army and the Colonel of his Regiment and the Captain of his Troop as distinct subordinate Bodies but the Major General General of the Ordnance Quartermaster General c. may be only under Officers to the whole and the noblest integral parts but as such no constitutive Head of any Body of Men whatever So that General Pastors prove no superior proper Church But because it was lawful in prudence for the Apostles to have taken several Provinces limited severally to each so may men now and if any call such Churches I strive not so the matter be agreed on 8. I ever owned a Christian Kingdom and the agreeing Association of as many Churches as can for mutual help and concord and the King to be their Governor by the Sword And if any will call a Kingdom a Church or an Association that hath no constitutive Government a Church as if he called a Diet or Assembly of many Kings or Princes a Kingdom or Republick let him enjoy his Equivocation so we understand each other 9. According to these Principles I own my self a Member of the universal Church of the Church of England and of the Parish or particular Church where for the time I am called to be that is as they are But I think I may remove from Parish to Parish as I have cause as a dweller or a lodger may and I take not all the Parish to be the Church and take Parish bounds to be no Divine Institution but a humane mutable point of order convenient when by accident it crosseth not the end nor doth more harm than good 10. I think if any Nobleman in London confine his ordinary communion to a just assembly in his happel or any that have a Minister utterly unsuitable to their needs do usually hold communion in the next Parish Church for better he is thereby neither Separatist nor Sinner 11. According to all this when I was silenced I ordinarily heard Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Tillotson and communicated in several places as I had best opportunity and quickly going to Acton I there constantly morning and evening joyned at Common prayer and Sermon communicating in the Sacrament where I had best opportunity being loth for the Parson and Curates sâ—ke to tell you why it was not there once with Dr. Horton and often with Nonconformists The Plague driving me to Hambden I constantly there joyned in all the publick Worship and Sacrament Returning to Acton I did as before and sometime repeated Dean Rieve's Sermon till he got me sent to Gaol for teaching some willing ignorant people between the Church meetings in my house Thence going to Totteridge I many years constantly twice a day joyned in the publick worship and took the Sacrament when administred as Mr. Parre will testifie Thence removing to London and licensed by the King to preach I forbare some time and after chose only the Market house at St. James's openly declaring that we met not as separating from the publick Churches but for the need of multitudes that went to no Church for want of room Since then I have many years joyned in all the publick worship Word Prayer and Sacraments with the Parish Church when able since that I also sometime joyn with Nonconformists and preach my self Afternoons and on Thursdays in the Nonconformists Chappels being not allowed to do it otherwise In the Country in Summer I have far off got into some Parish Churches for a day and tryed neer London but could not have consent though I have Bishop Sheldon's License for that Diocess I think not yet invalidated This is the matter of fact Now Reader Qu. 1. Doth the tenth part of those counted of this Parish Church hear and communicate so oft as I do Q. 2. If not what makes them and not me to be of that Church Q. 3. What is the constancy that this Dr. maketh necessary to a member Q. 4. What are the parts of their worship which he saith I joyn not in Hath he named any Q. 5. Is this only occasional joyning Sect. 3. I do maintain that 1. When consideratis considerandis we may choose the purest Churches and most edifying Ministry it is a duty so to do And one of his answers the Rector c. hath in the Epistle cited his own words not out of the retracted Irenicon but his late Book against Popery expresly threatning us with damnation if we do not To which I find no excuse made by him yea the Papist adversary grants the same 2. I do maintain against those that separate from all Churches which they dare not be stated members of that its lawful to communicate occasionally where we may not do it statedly But is this to deny all save occasional communion with all their Churches 3. I often say that there is so great difference of Parish Ministers and of Persons cases and opportunities and Relations as Wives Children Servants under Parents c. of divers commands c. that to be constant Communicants in their Parish Church is to some a duty to some a sin and so is occasional communion Sect. 4. As to the second sort that hold all communion with them unlawful 1. I leave them to plead their own cause and I meddle only with my own part 2. But I must say that if they mistake those that wilfully give them the occasion are unfit reprovers of them And if men for worldly ends or by error will corrupt and defile a Church to the utmost that is consistent with lawful Communion or neer it they may make the question whether their Communion be lawful too hard for understandings Every one cannot tell whether one in a swoon be alive or dead and some may bury him too hastily Stretch not my similitude beyond my meaning If a Gentleman of the game should by wilful sin get the Lues Venerâ—â— and the case be disputed whether his wife may separate from him or if he beat her once a week if she will not daily eat that which makes her grievous sick and he doth it to exercise his Authority another may better plead against her departure than he If it be a fault in her so to save her self what is it in him to destroy or abuse her If we be forbidden to take poyson and one will causelesly command us to take a doubtful thing as Nightshade Hemlock Aâ—ripigmentum c. and then condemn us as disobedient for refusing he is the unfittest person to condemn us If it be lawful to avoid a house that hath the Plague a man is excusable that mistakes the spotted Fever for it Were your Congregations but full of persons that had the scabs of the small Pox not dryed away and one went to a sounder Congregation for fear of infection not at all condemning you he might be born with
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
say against it 4. Few of the most ignorant that needed them would then have left the Parish Churches to hear Nonconformists in private but now many will come to us that cannot get in to the Parish Churches Other different effects may be named Sect. 10. 4. And though I accuse you not you that unjustly said before that I made you seem a company of perjured Villains seems to think your self that the fore alledged causes make many of the people think little better of some and a Church thought to consist of such Pastors and Vestries c. essential parts differ from those that do not 2. And the multitude of Atheists and filthy livers and the thousands of Noncommunicants who are still taken for real members of your Churches have now stood out against so long means and patience that the reasons of longer waiting for Reformation much differs from theirs in the beginning 3. The Canon at first did not ipso facto excommunicate all that do but profess themselves Nonconformists as since it did 4. The Bishops and their Canoneers had not then cast out 2000 nor neer so many Preachers as now and so did not so much tempt the people to flee from them as persecutors thorns thistles or wolves 5. When one Bishop cast any out some other usually would endure them but now it was not so 6. The people saw daily that you bore with those as no Schismaticks that never communicated nor used to hear you even the greater half of many Parishes and took them for Church members as is said and therefore they had reason to hope that they that communicated somewhere with Protestants especially that communicated also with your own Churches were as good Members and by good Pastors would be as well endured Sect. 11. 5. Lastly The forenamed causes of our preaching much differ 1. We saw the Kingdom though under usurpers engaged by Vow Practice and about sixteen years possession and custom to another way and who could expect that a Law should presently change them all and assure them of absolution 2. They that conformed were the more averse to see about six thousand Ministers that had gone the other way so suddenly change as to declare assent and consent to a Book which they never saw 3. The case of the Plague the burning of the Churches the Kings Licenses c. I named before which verily made a great difference 4. And the numbers that call to us for help makes a great difference when then they that needed them most did not desire it These are some differences Sect. 12. p. 95. He saith There is no reason of separation because of the doctrine of our Church Answ But now you have corrupted it in the Article of Infants undoubted salvation before described and before by the doctrines about Prelacy Godfathers power and duty Impositions c. implyed in your practical Canons there is great cause of Nonconformity P. 96. Repeateth that great mistake that there are no alterations in our own judgment which make the terms of Communion harder than before Answ What hope then of being understood how far is this from truth The terms are sar harder to Ministers and to the people they are easier in some things as amending some translations c. but it is not to them a small matter to make such a change of their Pastors as in too many Parishes is made The Bishop promised them at Kiderminster when he forbad me to preach that they should be no losers by the change They said and I had great reason to believe them that the Successor knew so little of the sence of the Creed and preach'd so rarely four times a year I am loth to tell you how that they durst not be guilty of encouraging him in undertaking the charge of Souls nor durst take him for their Pastor And the great increase of buildings in London shuts thousands now out of such Parish Churches who could have got in heretofore and some more differences are before implyed p. 97. As other Churches own your Churches so do we though not your imposed sins Sect. 13. p. I was in hope to have met with some answer to my importunate Question What would you have the many score thousands do that cannot come within your Churches to hear But no importunity will prevail for so small a matter with inexorable men But he saith 1. that this is but a pretence 2. And that no man denyeth that more places are desirable c. Ans 1. It is me that he is now accusing why doth he barely say and not prove that it 's but a pretence I never set up a Meeting place but in St. Martins Parish where are said to be forty thousand more than can come within the Church And when they would not suffer me to use it I gladly left it to the use of the Parish Minister I preach now twice a week elsewhere but both the places are in Neighbourhoods where many thousands cannot hear in the Parish Churches What if other men have other sufficient reasons as the utter incapacity of some Ministers or the like doth it follow that my own case and prosessed reason is a meer pretence why then did I use no publick preaching while I lived in such Villages where the people might go to Church and why did I constantly twice a day lead them thither though some disliked it 2. The question is not whether more Churches are desirable But where they are not whether many thousands must live like Atheists without all publick teaching or Divine Worship for fear of being called Schismaticks Is not this plainly to chuse damnation If the Gospel be needless why do we wish the Heathens had it Why subscribe you against mens hopes of being saved in all their several Religions If Church worship be needless why is a Clergy to be so honoured and maintained at so dear a rate Aud why do you make such a stir with Separatists to bring them to your Churches Can men not blinded by interest chuse but wonder that so many thousands in a Parish should be taken for Church Members and live quietly that come not to any Church or never communicate with any and yet that godly persons who hear and communicate with their old tryed Pastors yea with such as communicate with you should be preach'd and written against as Schismaticks and judged to that which some endure Did this Dr. think that to drop in the case of other men when he was at a loss would make good his charge against me and such as I Mr. Tombes and Mr. Williams preached other doctrine do I do so and have you proved it But seeing he will needs bring the case to Kiderminster whether I would suffer Mr. Tombes to gather a Congregation I must not balk it but advise him hereafter to keep himself at a greater distance and not to put his own followers who are willing enough to believe him upon utter impossibilities He sped better
while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Parish cannot hear you much less many greater Parishes that if some of them do but sometimes crowd in perhaps once in many months or weeks by coming with the first and do but dwell in the Parish and own you that they have no need to hear or worship God publickly all the rest of the year and to pretend such need becometh not Sincerity 2. And as to those that meet in lesser Parishes you thought not meet to take notice of my answer assigning many Reasons which I will not repeat any further than to tell you 1. That many Churches there are unbuilt 2. Many come from the greater Parishes to them and some have other Reasons Sect. 15. P. 102. He saith Mr. Baxter hath a whole Chapter Plea p. 141. of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church Answ You are unhappy in History though it be your strength There 's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches but only the Matter of Fact named which is supposed to the Controversie But it being cunningly worded by you it may be by Reasons against Communion with our Churches you meant but as I did Reasons for Nonconformity in those particular Acts But do you not your self all-along suppose and plead that though we conform not yet we should hold Communion with you Why call you then the Reasons of Nonconformity Reasons against Communion Sect. 16. P. 103. He adds in the same Books he saith it is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the transient Sign of the Cross or for want of God-fathers c. or to deny Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who seperate in these things are not Answ 1. Say you so Then we are not only quit but further quit than we can own our selves I undertake to prove that it may be Schism to separate from a Church that is guilty of some Schismatical Acts and Impositions And it needs no proof but the plain History and their Accusations of one another that there are few if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of somewhat that is Schismatical in East VVest North or South in Africk Asia Europe or America Greeks Muscovites Jacobites Abassines Nestorians Armenians Georgians Mengrelians Circassians Papists Lutherans Calvinists Prelaticalls Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists c. And must we separate from them all 2. Verily Sir denying Persons Christendom and Church-Communion are great things And if a Cross and a gesture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day be now matters so weighty as for them to deny Christendome and Communion for shame call them Indifferent no more one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbishop Laâ—d you had been of another mind if words are any notifying Signs of your mind 3. Other Pastors may be used in such instances without separating from you Sir these are not impossibilities to peaceable men In both the places where I formerly preached a publick Minister and a private lovingly joyn as assistants one doing that part which the other cannot And they all live in peace Sect. 17. I am next assaulted Pag. 110. I say The Benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did c. though the least defective must be chosen when no such Reasons sway the other way Reader is not this true Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Parish Churches and from almost all or require us causelesly to choose sins of omission Would you not take him for a separatist that is against this But he saith And hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Unity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church then of the Armâ—nian or Abissine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer Answ 1. This is not true For 1. we take this Church to be far less corrupt than the Armenian or Abissine 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magistrates Laws and Protection c. 2. Is nearness such a trifle with you How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny Tell us why we should be of your Parish Church rather than of one an hundred miles off but for nearness and Cohabitation why else of old had each City its own Church 3. Is Catholick Unity become a Romantick Fancy Is this the same man that wrote the Defence of Archbishop Laud we are not ashamed of the title of Catholick 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other 5. When prove you that I am only for occasional Communion when I have so long practised constant Communion with you These are reasons suitable to your cause Sect. 18. He adds Ask him what Church he is a Member of If he answer he could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none would they if he were at Jerusalem take such a man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church And I much doubt whether they would admit such an one to occasional Communion c. Answ 1. Wonderful Who would have thought that this man had been so much for the Principles of Separation more than the Independants In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys is formally in the whole Church and given to Peter as their Representative which is not true for it was given only to Pastors as such and not to the Laity And now he would make that man no Christian that is no fixed Member of some particular Church Let us examine whether this be true CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Universal Church which is Christs Body is a true Christian But many are Members of the Universal Church which are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Christians for it is their Christening But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 3. He that hath all the Essentials of Christianity is a Christian But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Essentials of Christianity Ergo. 4. A fortiore They that are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church though Baptised are not unchristened for want of such Membership But many Baptized person are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church Ergo. Instances
1. The Eunuch baptized in his Travails Acts. 9 was only a Member of the Church Universal 2. Those that were converted by Frumentius and Edesius when there was no particular Church And all that are first converted in any Infidel or Heathen Land before any Church be formed 3. Those that by Shipwrack are cast on heathen Countries where no Churches are 4. Travellers that go from Country to Countries as Lythgow did nineteen years and others many And I think he unhappily named Jerusalem where Travellers come that are of no fixed Church unless he in that also be a Superindependant and think that men may be many years Members of a Church many hundred miles off which they have no personal communion with 5. Merchants and Factors who are called to dwell long among Infidels where are no Churches 6. Embassadors who by their Princes are sent to reside among such much of their lives 7. Wanderers that have no fixed habitations as many Pedlers and other poor wandering Tradesmen and loose Beggars that have no Dwelling 8. Those thot live among Papists or any other Christians who impose some sin as a condition of communion 9. Those that live among such Christians as have no true Pastors who are constitutive parts of particular Churches Some being incapable through insufficiency some by Heresie and some for want of a true Call Such as by Mr Dodwells Doctrine most of the Christian World are for want of uninterrupted rrue Episcopal Ordination 10. Those who are subjects to such as permit them not to be fixed Members As Wives hindred by Husbands Children by Parents and some Subjects violently hindred by Princes who yet allow them transient Communion And verily a man would think by the writings of many Conformists that they took it for a Duty to obey a Prince in such a case 11. Those who live where Church-corruptions are not so great as to make transient Communion unlawful but so great as to make fixed communion seem to be a culpable consent If I come in travel to a Church of Strangers I am not bound to examine what their Discipline is what their Lives be or how their Pastors are called But where I am fixed I am more bound to know these and if I find them exclude Discipline live wickedly and have unlawful Pastors I may in some cases be a partaker of the sin if I fix among them 12. They that live in a time and place of Schism and distraction striving who shall prevail and condemning each other all following several Factions and needing Reconcilers It may for a time become in prudence the duty of peace-makers to own no Faction nor to be more of one Church than of another while he seeth that it will do more hurt than good And those that wait in hope as the Nonconformists now do to see whether their Rulers will restore them to reformed Parish Churches may at once in prudence find it needful neither to fix as Members in some Parish Churches till reformed in the Teachers at least nor to seem to be Separatists by gathering new Churches In none of all these cases is a man unchristened nor schismatical for being no fixed member of any Church besides the Universal And as it is the ill hap of these men commonly to strike themselves I doubt they will prove Grotius himself no Christian by this Rule who for many years before he died they say joyned with no particular Church as a fixed member And I know not well what particular Church they make the King a Member of Sect. 2. To his Questions Pag. 3. Were we not Baptized into this Church and do you not Renounce Membership This is scarce a civility I answer 1. This Church which Church do you mean I was not Baptized into St. Giles's nor St. Andrew's Parish Church but into one above an hundred miles off and yet my removal made me no culpable Separatist Or doth he mean This Diocesan Church No I was Baptized in the Diocess of Lichfield Doth he mean This National Church as it is supposed a political body constituted of the Ecclesiastical Governing and Governed Parts he saith there is no such Church of England but that It inferreth Popery to assert such But if he equivocate here and mean not by a Church as in the rest but either a christian Kingdom or an agreeing Association of many Churches I am still a fixed member of such a Kingdom and of such an Association in all things necessary to Churches and Christian Communion 2. But Baptism as such entred me only into the Universal Church much less did it fix me in any other I was Baptized where I was to stay but a little while And this phrase of being Baptized into our Church is to me of ill sound or intimation Bellarmine saith that all that are baptized are interpretatively thereby engaged to the Pope I was baptized in a Parish and in a Diocess and in a Christian Kingdom but not so into them as to be obliged to continue under that Priest or Bishop or in that Kingdom And my Baptism I hope did not oblige me to every Canon Ceremony Form or Sin of the associated Churches in England abusively by him called one Church 3. And unhappily it is not meer Independancy that he is still pleading for but some extremes which the moderate Independants disclaim viz. That a member of their Churches is so tyed to them that they may not remove to another without their consent And am I so tyed to what to Parochial or to the Diocesan or to the association of English Churches If it had been to the Species I would fain know whether their things called by them Indifferents specifie them Sect. 3. P. 111 112. He yet more pleads as for Separation why then above once or twice why should I so countenance defective Worship and not rather reprove it by total forbearance of Communion c. Answ My Reasons I told him because the accidents may continue which made it a Duty but I cannot hinder others from yielding to his arguments Let him make his best of them Only I must tell him yet 1. that if he lay his cause on this that their Parochial or Diocesan Churches are not defective 2. Or that the defects cannot by others be avoided he will quite marr his matter and undo all by overdoing 3. And if he indeed think that all defective Churches must be forsaken he will be one of the greatest Schismaticks in the World But who can reconcile this with the scope of his whole Book Sect. 4. P. 112. He saith Here are no bounds set to peoples Fancies of purer Administrations Answ Have I so oft and copiously named the bounds and now is the answer Here are none Are there none in all the same Books he citeth 2. Scripture is their bounds as he well openeth in his desence of Biâ—hop Laud. Sect. 5. P. 114. He complains of my leaving out the best part of his argument viz. The people may go
their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
Presbyterian National Church is one as headed by the General Assembly 10. An Episcopal National Church is one either as headed by one National Bishop or else by a Synod of Bishops Aristocratically or else by a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters Aristocratically All these that are constituted of One Regent and a subdite Part are called Churches in a Political proper sense and not only equivocally Now the Question is Of which sort is the National Church of England And the Doctor saith page 287. 1. That the Society of all Christians is counted a true Catholick Church from their Union and Consent in some common things and so is ours c. Answ But in what common things Not in one Bible for so may Hereticks much less in one Liturgy If it be not a consent in one Governing Head it makes no proper Church 2. He supposeth an agreement in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline Answ That 's right But what Government is it Civil or Ecclesiastical The first is no essential part of a proper Church If it be the later is it one in specie or in individuâ— politico Not the former for a 100 Episcopal Churches in several Nations may have one species of Government as many Kingdoms may have It is therefore the later that is all my Question which is the Church-Head He saith As several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National Answ True if that National Church have one Constitutive Head as a Family hath It 's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias And no Governed proper Church without Governours and there is no Governour where there is no supreme in his place and kind For inferiours have all their power from the supreme There is no Universal supreme but God but the King is subordinately the supreme in his Kingdom in respect to inferiours and so it is in other Governed Societies He addeth The name of a Church comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and so may be extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government and the same rules of Religion Answ 1. If the question were only de nomine we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are usually by Writers called Ecclesia and so is any Assembly If this be all you mean speak out 2. Many Nations may agree in the same Rules of Religion yea so all Christians do Doth this constitute National Churches 3. One Civil Government is of another species and not essential but accidental to a Church and therefore doth not constitute or individuate it One justice of Peace or Mayor in a Christian Corporation doth not make it one Parish Church But if this be all your meaning speak out we grant de re a Christian Kingdom and contend not de nomine if you call it a Church § 3. page 297. â— As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom he granteth what we desire confessing the difference But asketh whence cometh all this zeal now against a National Church Answ An untrue insinuation 1. To desire to know what it is is untruly called zeal against it 2. And agreeing with you in the description is no zeal against it He adds The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudson write for it Answ Mr. Hudson is a Conformist And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean a Christian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Assembly as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Government Whether this be just or unjust is now none of our question I have oft told what I think of it Do you also tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done Are you loth to be understood § 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Answer viz. 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And now he continues his wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Answ Yea your wonder may increase that I less and less understand it if you did not after tell us better â—â—an in this unhappy definition 1. Is this called the Church diffusive one Governed body Politick If not it is no Church in the sense in question and I 'le not stick with you for an equivocal name 2. Do you mean by Government agreed in 1. The Civil Government 2. Or the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally 3. Or one Government of all the National Church 1. The first makes it no Church in the sense in question 2. The second makes it no Church but an Association of many Churches such as a thousand Independent Churches may make or the Churches of many Kingdoms Many Families Associated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Governours but only their several Family Governours Many Cities associated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one supreme power It 's no political body without one common Governour Natural or Collective Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And what is it of Worship established by Law that individuates your Church If all thâ—â— the Law hath established 1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being and may do at every Parliament 2. And the Church is small and unknown if all that differ in any point established are no parts of it But if it be not all established who knoweth by this definition what it is and what is the very matter of your Church So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form § 5. Next he answereth the Question How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church and answereth By Unity of Consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Answ Consent to what 1. If it be not to one common Government it is no Governed Church as one 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church consenteth not to one Governing Head Christ And doth any thing else make them formally One Politick body or Church This were ill Doctrine § 6. Question How comes it to be One National Church Saith he I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are Answ Whether How comes it Speak of the efficient cause or the formal or what it 's hard to know so singular are his Logical notions But the first is most likely And then 1. The question is still unanswered What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament consent hath â—â—t up He knows this is the question 2. And if it be by Parliament consent how old is your Church What Parliament first made it It 's not so old as Luther Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons 3. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it If the corruption of
is a matter of more weight than Tythes and Temples If Tythes be proved not to be of Divine Right all that can be expected is that if the flock cannot trust him whom the Patron chuseth they let him give his Tythes and Temple to whom he please and they will trust their souls with such as they dare and safely may But if he will chuse and offer them one whom they can safely and comfortably accept so as Tythes and Temples shall preponderate in case of small difference in the men prudence obligeth them to accept of the advantage The same I say of the Magistrates countenance and approbation But if the difference be very great it 's better stretch our purses to build new Temples and pay our Pastors than trust our souls on the Pastoral Conduct of ignorant malignant unfaithful or heretical men § 6. V. I have oft said that mutual consent is necessary to the being of the relation of Pastor and Flock And though sometimes the Rulers imposition and the Patrons choice may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to consent when the good preponderates the hurt not else yet till they consent the Relation is not existent As if Children were bound to take Wives and Husbands by the Command and fore choice of Parents yet it 's no Marriage till they consent § 7. The common objection is from the inconvenience if the several parties agree not To which I answer 1. The mischief of the contrary way is worse than that inconvenience 2. There is nothing in this World without inconveniences where all things and persons and actions are imperfect 3. If Parents and Children agree not about their Marriage it hath great inconveniences And yet neither Parents Government nor Childrens consenting Liberty must be denyed 4. In so weighty a Case divers Locks and Keys keep the Churches treasure safe Prince Patron People and Ordainers will not so often agree on a vile person as any one of them alone may do § 8. And now judge how Logically how honestly the Doctor hath stated the Case and made me Intolerably indiscreet and tragical against Magistrates Patrons and Laws And try if you can understand what it is instead of this that he would have I tell him again that if he deny the necessity of the flocks consent to the mutual relation he notoriously opposeth the judgment and practice of Antiquity and the Universal Church of Princes Patriarchs Prelates Councils and People and fights against the full stream of Historical evidence for a new crooked way that would make as many modes of Religion as there are different Princes And here he wonders what he said that occasioned such undecent passion It seems he felt some passion in reading it and thought he must have the like that wrote it And so let any man obtrude any pernicious thing on the Church and he can easily prove the detector to have undecent passion for giving a bad Cause its proper name § 9. But he cannot find out the reason of my inference that then Princes may impose what Religion they please Answ Not understanding with some men goes for confuting To put Religion for the mode of Religion is too little a slip of his to be insisted on But is not my inference necessary I urged him to tell me in what Countries and under what sort of Princes the Rule holds that the People must not judge whether the offered Pastors be Hereticks nor refuse them if Prince and Patron present them He will not be entreated to tell me I tell him that if the Rule be universal when a Papist Socinian Anabaptist Antiepiscopal c. Prince and Patron present men of their own mind and they are instituted the People must take and trust them as their Pastors And is not this to set up in all the Churches what modish Religion Prince and Patron please Is this hard to be understood Yet he calls this Railing on him for suppositions of my own making And here he steps over to another man § 10. Before I come to his undertakings I will repeat anothers railing and undecent passion against his Cause And I desire the Reader to note how well the Doctors of the Church of England agree and to learn which of them it is that we must believe both as to History and Right It is Mr. Herbert Thorndike in his Treatise of Forbearance of Penal It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation in the Church to regular Government without restoring the Liberty of chusing Bishops and the priviledge of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and People of each Diocess So evident is the right of Synods Clergy and People in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be Governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it Yet these two are Doctors of one Church but we are no Members of it § 11. I again say that either the Reader hath read the Church History and Canons or not If not how can he tell who to believe that report them the Doctor or me But if he have I will no more dispute this Case with him than I would do whether English Parliaments used to make Laws He is past my conviction if he be not convinced § 12. And I will again say that I will yet suppose the Doctor so humble as to acknowledge himself much inferiour to Paulus sarpi servita venerunt in point of Church History At least I say to the Reader peruse what he hath said of this Controversie and of the alteration of Church Government in his History of the Council of Trent and his Book of Church Benefices lately translated by Dr. Denton and doubt if you can § 13. And in general I add I. I suppose no man of such reading maketh any doubt of the first 300 years whether any Bishops were made over any Church without the free Election or Consent of the Flocks and the whole Clergy and the approbation of the Ordainers I will not for shame stay to prove this having said so much of it in my first Plea for Peace and Episcopal Church History which are unanswered II. And since the first 300 years it 's so notorious in History that it 's a shame to need proof of it that the Christian Emperours confirmed the Churches in this right and use and for many hundred years after permitted and ordered that Bishops should be chosen by the People Clergy and Synods and when the Peoples Election was infringed the necessity of their consent long continued And it was only in the choice of the five Patriarchs that the Emperours used to meddle and that not always nor at all chusing them alone but commending some one to the People and Clergy to chuse or confirming some one that they had nominated And this held on till Popery sprung up III. And even then the Popes long continued it But 1. They strove specially in Hildebrand's days and
c. 3. That many of them deny all proper Sacramental causality of Grace 4. Specially Physical And Protestants make them not meer signs but investing signs 5. And ponere obicem is to want necessary moral qualification and action as aforesaid And now the Dr. had done well to tell me wherein I was very much mistaken § 15. He next saith The Cross is in no sence held to be an instrument appointed for conveying Grace Answ 1. Not by God for it is none of God's Ordinances 2. But that by men it is I have manifested if a moral objective moving and teaching means may be called an Instrument If not the word Instrument is noting to our case 1. To work on the soul of the adult by representation signification excitation as the word doth is to be an operative moral cause or means And this the Church ascribeth to it Pref. to Liturg. c. 2. The death of Christ and the benefits of it and reception into the Church and State of Christianity and the sense of our Engagement to fight under Christ's banner c. are Grace some of which is given by excitation and some the Relation by investiture § 16. And now whether I have only invented these objections to amuse and perplex mens consciences and this Dr. hath made all so plain that all may venture on it and he and all Ministers may deny them Christendom that dare not venture and cast out all from the Ministry that be not as bold as he I leave to consideration He next turneth to Mr. A. about bowing and so goeth to their Excommunication CHAP. XI Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicated for not Communicating when Excommunicated be guilty of Schism § 1. THeir Canons excommunicate ipso facto all that say Conformity is unlawful and many such like 1. He saith The excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but those who obstinately affirm it Answ Reader trust neither him nor me but read the words Can. 3 4 5 6. Whosoever shall affirm that the Church of England by Law established under his Majesty is not a true and an Apostolical Church let him be excommunicated ipso facto Whosoever shall affirm that the form of God's worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common-prayer is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful worship of God or containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till c. Whosoever shall affirm that any of the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till c. Whosoever shall affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law established are wicked antichristian or superstitious OR such as being commanded by lawful authority men who are zealously and Godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them OR as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till he repent and publickly revoke such his wicked errours Can. 7. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE IN the same is antichristian OR repugnant to the word of God let him be excommunicate ipso facto c. Can. 8. Whosoever shall affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the word of God let them be excommunicate ipso facto c. Can. 11. Whosoever shall affirm that there are within this Realm other Meetings Assemblies or Congregations of the Kings born subjects than such as by the Law of this Land are held and allowed which may rightly challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches let him be excommunicate ipso facto c. And now if the Reader will no more believe the Doctor it is not long of me If all this be no more than to excommunicate them that obstinately affirm the Ceremonies Antichristian impious or superstitious understanding them is not possible § 2. But I confess they excommunicate not men for secret thoughts We thank them for nothing It is but for telling their judgment And Dissenters may have many occasions to tell it The Kings Commission once allowed some of us to tell it The Demands Accusations calumniating Books and Sermons c. may call many to it § 3. He saith All Excommunication supposeth precedent Admonition Answ 1. They should do so The worse is yours because it doth not so It only alloweth admonition to repent for his restoration which made M. Anton. Spalatensis say so much against it 2. If it did oblige you to admonish us as you have done by your Books you know that this changeth not our judgments So that to be excommunicate before the admonition and after comes all to one But indeed when the Law ipso facto excommunicateth the Law it self is the admonition § 4. He addeth General excommunications though they be latae sententiae do not affect the particular persons till the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but the contumacy Answ Affecting is a word that signifieth what you please Ipso facto is for and upon the fact proved without any sentence of a judge While the fact only is thus made the full cause the contumacy need not be proved It 's true 1. That the fact must be proved 2. And then the Law is a sentence and Relatively affecteth the person as sentenced 3. But no persons else are obliged to avoid him till the fact be lawfully published But the man is excommunicate And 4. Whether the man that knoweth the Law and his own Fact be not bound himself to avoid the Churches Communion is a great Controversie And the plain truth is If it be a just Excommunication he is bound to forbear Communion in obedience to it As much as a silenced Minister is to forbear Preaching But if it be a sentence unjust and injustice be not so gross as to nullifie it still he must forbear But if it be so unjust as to be invalid he may Communicate till he be executively rejected As one so unjustly silenced may preach if he can for the case is much like The Reader would be displeased if I should cite him many Casuists in so plain a case 2. But no man doubteth but the General sentence of the Canon speaketh the sence of the Church and doth all that Law-makers can do before judgment And the Law is norma officii judicii obliging Subject and Judge § 5. It 's true that Linwood saith that a Declaratory sentence that is A Declaration that such a man is already sentenced by the Law is necessary to oblige any to the
execution of it on others or the person in foro externo But still the Church hath done her part in Legislation to oblige as aforesaid § 6. He saith Persons excommunicate are to be denounced so every six months that others may have notice of them Answ 1. But are they not excommunicate then before they are so oft denounced yea or at all as far as aforesaid § 7. He saith I have fully answered my own Objection by saying I am not bound to execute the sentence on my self Answ 1. He would not say that he approveth the answer For if he do he confuteth himself that would have us execute the silencing sentence on our selves and the sentence against publick worship in any way but theirs 2. My reason is because I take the unjust sentence as invalid else I were bound in foro interiore 3. But sure the Church at least relaxeth that mans obligation to present Communion by shewing her will if she did not oblige him to withdraw Read over the words of the Canon and see whether they make them not as unintelligible and flexible to what sense they please as they do the words of the Act of Uniformity and Liturgy § 8. As to his two cases in which the excommunicate may be schismaticks for not communicating 1. We question not the first Just excommunication excludeth none but the guilty Here then indeed is the state of our Controversie Had he proved that in all the cases before cited it is just to excommunicate us he had done somewhat when now for want of it he betrayeth his cause 2. His 2d is If they form new Churches Answ 1. Is forming new Churches and not communicating with the old ones all one Our present question is of the later So that this great Accuser seemeth plainly to absolve all from being bound to Communicate with them who are unjustly excommunicate and gather not new Churches 2. But may not the unjustly excommunicate that cannot on just terms be restored worship God in some publick Church Doth such a wicked sentence bind men to live like Atheists till death or deprive them of their right to all God's Ordinances even many Papist Doctors and Councils say the contrary And how else do you justifie the Church of England against the Papists charge of Schism § 9. p. 372. He still seemeth to think that His own and others reasonings may change all the truly honest Christians in the Land to hold all the things imposed lawful Answ These thoughts of the Bishops in 1660. and 1661. have brought us all to the pass that we are at And if after 20 years so great experience of the inefficacy of all their Disputes yea and Prisons and after the notice of the nature and different cases of men they still trust to bring us to Concord on these terms disputing with such men is in vain The Lord deliver us from them CHAP. XII Of the English sort of Sponsors and the exclusion of Parents duty § 1. PAge 380. He saith I several times mention this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with us yea as the greatest objection Answ Four places of my writings are cited and all will testifie to him that will read them the untruth of the Doctors words This is an unhappy course of accusations I can find no word of The unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground On the contrary I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful viz. By getting if possible credible Sponsors of the old sort and agreeing with them to be the Parents Representer and promise as in his name or at least but as his second undertaking the Education of the Child if he die or apostatize which was the old sort and himself to be present and signifie his consent by gesture though he may not speak But I have shewed 1. That this must be done besides the Churches order that hath no such thing 2. That subscribing to the Churches order herein is unlawful 3. That the Church which refuseth the Child lawfully offered ought not to blame that person that cannot or will not make such shifts but getteth another Pastor to Baptize him whom they sinfully refuse But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you But it 's lawful to use better also when they can being thus repulsed by you § 2. He saith The Parents are to provide such as are fit to under take that office Answ 1. No one is fit for it as used by the Liturgy but an Adopter that taketh the Child for his own For he undertaketh the Parents work And it 's lis sub judice whether any others undertaking besides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered and have right to the seal and benefits Atheists and Insidels Children are unholy 1 Cor. 7. 14. 2. If any were sit few Parents can get such as will understandingly and deliberately and credibly promise them to do all that Godfathers must by the Liturgy undertake I never knew one in my life that seemed to the Parent to mean any such thing much less to do it I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Witnesses and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy without Crossing and never more in 6. or 7. years after because of the imposed corruptions Mr. Kettilby the Bookseller unless his Father had another Child of the same name baptized the same year was one But his Father gave him his name and promised all his own duty and his Uncle and Aunt standing as Sponsors we before agreed that they should signifie but Witnesses and friendly helpers in case of need 2. But what if the Parents are bid provide such that is no discharge of their own part nor are they bound to cast their duty on others § 3. He saith as to the Child 's Right to Baptism that the Godfathers stand in a threefold capacity 1. Representing the Parent in offering 2. Representing the Child in promising 3. In their own as undertakers of his education c. Answ 1. I will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's sence the Godfathers are not the Parents representatives at all nor speak in their name 2. If they were then when the Parents both are Atheists Infidels Hobbists scorners at Godliness Hereticks the Godfathers can represent them but as they are and their own faith entitleth not the Child because they stand in the persons of Atheists Infidels c. your Church doth not like this doctrine 3. And as to their representing the Child quo jure is the doubt It cannot be done without some representing power given them And who gave it them 4. And as to the third Person in this multiform
and my Conscience might have been bolder and less fearful of sin And though I love not to displease them I must say this great truth that I had never been like to have lived in so convincing sensible experience of the great difference of the main body of the Conformists from the most of the Nonconformists as to the seriousness of their Christian Faith and hope and practice their victory over the flesh and world c. I mean both in the Clergy and Laity of mine acquaintance O how great a difference have I found from my youth to this day Though I doubt not but very many of the Passive Conformable Ministers to say nothing of the Imposers have been and are worthy pious men and such as would not perswade their hearers that the Jesuits first brought in spiritual prayer And I had the great blessing of my Education near some such in three or four neighbour Parishes § 4. It grieved me to hear of Mr. Glanvile's death for he was a man of more than ordinary ingeny and he was about a Collection of Histories of Apparitions which is a work of great use against our Sadducees and to stablish doubters and the best mans faith hath need of all the helps from sense that we can get And I feared lest that work had perished with him But I gladly hear that by the care of Dr. H. More that worthy faithful man of peace who never studied preferment it is both preserved and augmented And as for his Origenisme as I like it not so I confess in matters of that nature I can better bear with the venturousness of dissenters than hereticators can do But when I saw this Rag called a Letter left behind him my grief for him was doubled And I saw what cause we have all to fear the snares of a flattering world and what cause to pray for Divine preservation and for an unbyassed mind and a humble sense of our own frailty that we may neither over-value prosperity nor our own understandings I did not think that he that had wrote the Vanity of Dogmatizing could so soon have come to perswade men in power that dissenting from our Churches dogmatizing and imposed words formes and ceremonies was worthy of so severe a prosecution of us as he describeth and that all their danger is from the forbearing such prosecution of us and that though for their own ends he could abate us some little matters the only way to settled peace is vigorously to execute the Laws against us He that can think the silencing and imprisoning of about 2000 such Ministers is the way to bring this Land to Concord hath sure very hard thoughts of them in comparison of Conformists And that you may see how little his judgment against such should weigh with others who is so lately changed from himself I will give you here one of several Letters which I had from him and leave you to judge whether he have proved that he was much wiser at last than when he wrote this or whether his character of me agree with his motion to silence and ruine all such I am so far from owning his monstrous praises that I fear I offended him with sharply rebuking him for them But lest his wit and virulence here do harm I give it you to shew the unconstancy of his judgment or if he would have excepted me from his severities I must profess that I believe the most of the Nonconformable Ministers of my acquaintance are better men than my self and therefore his excessive praise of me is the condemnation and shame of his persecuting counsel § 5. As to his praise of the Bishops Writings against Popery I had rather magnifie than obscure their deserts But I am not able to believe that the old ones who write to prove the Pope Antichrist c. and the new ones who would bring us to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis Catholicae were of one mind because both are called Protestants and that such as Bishop Bramhall and the rest of the defenders of Grotius were of the same judgment with Bishop Usher Bishop Morton Bishop Downame c. nor that Grotius who describeth a Papist to be one that flattereth Popes as if all were right which they said and did did disclaim Popery in the same sense as the old Church of England did Two men may cry down Popery while one of them is a Papist or near one in the others sense As to the folly of calling that Popery which is not I have said more against it in my Cath. Theologie than he hath done And as to his excuse of an ignorant vicious sort of Ministers because no better will take small Livings It is not true The silenced Nonconformists would have been glad of them or to have preached there for nothing The tolerating of ignorant scandalous men were more excusable if better were not shut out that would have taken such places But it 's notorious that for the interest of their faction and prosperity they had rather have the ignorant and vicious than the ablest and most laborious Nonconformist Bishop Morley told me when he forbad me to preach that It was better for a place to have none than to have me when I askt him Whether I might not be suffered in some place which no one else will take Most of the old Nonconformists were suffered by connivance in small obscure places which was the chief reason why they set not up other meetings which Dr. Stillingfleet thought they avoided as unlawful because forbidden § 6. And as to his excuse by blaming ill Patrons I would know then by what true obligation all men in England are bound to commit the Pastoral conduct of their Souls to such men only as our English Patrons chuse § 7. And when he so blameth the tepidity and irreligiousness of the Members of their own Church I would know 1. Whether all men that are more seriously religious must be forsaken by us and ruined by them if they be not of their mind and form 2. And whether the numbers of the irreligious that are for their way and the numbers of the religious that are against it should not rather breed some suspicion in them than engage them to ruine so many such men § 8. And when page 3. he confesseth that the sword is their Churches strength and Government and how contemptible words paper Arguments and excommunications are without force doth he not shame their whole cause and shew that it is not the same Government which the Church used for many hundred years which they desire and that their whole power of the Keys which they talk so much for seems to themselves a dead and uneffectual thing while we Nonconformists desire no coercive power but to guide Consenters § 9. As to his project to save religion under a Papist King if the Dean and Chapter may but chuse the Bishop I leave it to other mâ—â—â— consideration But
that is an Heretick avoid Bid them not good speed Let no man deceive you Those that cause divisions and offences contrary to the doctrine ye have learned avoid from such turn away Is here no more than judging their lives § 18. Here he cometh to prove this even by Cyprian's Epistle against Martial and Basilides I must not name his dealing with it lest he say Irail But I may note 1. that he saith the force of what Cyprian saith comes at last only to this giving Testimony Answ Only here is more than Main before And though it was a matter of scandal that was before them and therefore it is no wonder if nothing else be particularly spoken of yet sure these words signifie more than Testimony By publick judgment and Testimony be approved worthy and meet And to be sound in the faith and apt to teach is some part of meetness And because they chiefly have power either to chuse Priests that are worthy or refuse the unworthy A chief chusing power of the worthy is more than a meer testimony of fact Again that by the suffrage of the whole fraternity the Episcopacy be delivered to him Suffrage is more than testimony of fact And All they do sin who are defiled by the sacrifice of a prophane and unjust Priest signifieth a dissenting power or else separation were no duty But he saith This is the strongest testimony in antiquity for the peoples power Answ A strange saying of so good an Historian who may easily know that the concurrent judgment of all the Churches their practice and their Canons making the Peoples consent and usually Election necessary was a far stronger testimony than one Epistle But to weaken this he saith 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned Answ 1. What 's that to the general rule here asserted 2. Was it voluntarily which they were adjudged to do But I find no mention of Martial's voluntary resigning but only Basilides 2. He saith Another Bishop was put in his place not by the power of the people c. Answ 1. This was before said that the people might give them power No. As if he would have the Reader think that we hold the people give the power which I have so oft disproved But it 's his advantage to talk to many men at once that he may say some of you said it But if distinction were not a crime I would distinguish between giving the power and concurring with other Causes to give a Receptivity to the person that must have it The peoples consent is a causa partialis of capacity and receptivity 2. But what signifie these words The Ordination of our Collegue Sabinus by the suffrage of the whole fraternity and by the judgment of the Bishops c. Is not this as much power as we plead for 3. Are not you the Author of the Defence of B. Laud and say That Christ gave the Keys to Peter as the representative of the whole Church And have you now said more against me or your self I am not of that mind 3. He saith They had the judgment of a whole Council for deserting him Answ Yes for deserting them both And that Council told them God had fore-determined in his word what men must or must not be Bishops and it was God rather than they that judged it and bound them to obey and that the power was chiefly in the people to chuse and refuse c. Did you think you had helpt your cause by saying It was a whole Council that was for what we say 4. He saith It was for Idolatry and blasphemy by his own confession Answ Which mean you by his when they were two neither of them were otherwise Idolaters than as Libellaticks who to save their lives suffered other men to subscribe their names thinking it was not their own deed like some that I have heard of that thought Conformity Perjury c. but let a Friend bribe an Officer to subscribe their names and give them a Certificate And Baslides blasphemy was in his sickness in terrour of Conscience and perhaps phrensie 5. He saith all St. Cyprian's proof is that the people were most concerned to give testimony of life c. This is answered already § 10. His next is The people on this assuming the power of Elections caused great disturbance and disorders in the Church where he goeth over some few of the many instances which I have at large recited at Antioch Rome Alexandria c. Answ 1. And yet for all these disorders the Church deprived not the People of their priviledge 2. But how fallaciously is this urged I have fully elsewhere opened to the Reader how the aspiring Prelates seeking Patriarchates and Bishopricks became as so many Captains at War and gathered Monks Clergy and People to strive and fight for them And now he layeth this on the People As if the common Souldiers and not the Generals were the cause of the War But of this I have said enough § 20. He saith To prevent this many Bishops were made without the choice of the People and Canons made to regulate Elections Answ Crastily said He saith not without the consent of the People but the Election And he saith not that the Canons took away either consenting or electing suffrages but that they regulated them Yes they over and over confirmed them § 21. He saith A◠Alexandria the Election belonged to the twelve Presbyters Answ They are hard put to it when they are put to fly to that testimony which maketh Presbyters the makers of Bishops Hierome and Eutychius Alexand. tell you that the Presbyters chose and made the Bishops as the Army doth a General which made Arch-Bishop Usher tell King Charles the First That the Presbyters at Alexandria did more than Ordain Presbyters for they made Bishops as he told me himself But 1. We never denied that the Com-provincial Bishops ordinarily afterwards Ordained them 2. Nor that the Presbyters chose them Did the Doctor think this was to the purpose But 1. Doth he think that the Presbyters choice excludeth the Peoples when it is a known thing that the Canons and Custom constantly conjoyned them 2. Will he conclude that when ever History nameth not the Peoples choice they are left out 3. Will he perswade us when the People are not the chusers that they are not necessarily the consenters or refusers I will add one more proof to all before-mentioned It is impossible ex naturâ rei that the Pastoral Office should be exercised on dissenters Therefore their consent is necessary A Patient may be drencht like a Horse and cram'd like fatted Fowl and so may have a Physician against his will But a Soul cannot use Pastoral help unwillingly 1. He cannot unwillingly be baptized 2. Nor unwillingly joyn in publick prayer and praise with the Church 3. Nor unwillingly confess sin 4. Nor unwillingly crave or receive Ministerial counsel 5. Nor unwillingly receive the Lords Supper 6.