Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
them own such an Office in the Church The first Testimony that I bring is that of Jerome who giveth his Judgment of this matter not Obiâ—er but of set purpose as that which was his setled Opinion and that oftner than â—nce In his Epistle to Euagrius where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent that preferred Deacons to Presbyters i. e. saith he to Bishâ—ps but sheweth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same for which he citeth Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth clanget tuba Evangâ—lâ—j filius toniâ—ru c. and so citeth 2 Joh. ver 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath shewed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest he telleth that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty Greatness or Meanness the difference of Cities where they are sive Romae sive Eâ—gâ—bij sive Constantinopoli c. they are ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii and sheweth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons saith nothing of Presbyters because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop that is they are the same What may seem to make against our cause in this Epistle is that he saith quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum which he saith was ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet which was done saith he in Alexandria a Marci Temporibus This may well be undeâ—stood of a Moderator of their Meetings who had power of Convening the Presbyters least every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure and so breed confusion and it must be so understood not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle Another passage is quid enim facit Episcopus praeâ—er Ordinationem quod non facit Presbyter Which cannot be understood of Ordination or sâ—le Ordination of Presbyters for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse but Ordination here must be ordering of their Meetings which is the part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderatâ—r One might also alledge that in the Writings of this learned Father a passage Obiter set down is not to be taken notice of in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of hâ—s Discourse tho' they be â—nâ—â—nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings and cited also by Dr. Stillingflâ—et Ireniouâ—â— p. 278. Itaqâ—e ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia in meâ—â—e mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum meinor Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom câ—mment in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject and asserteâ—h the same opinion as before Idem ergo saith he Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae alluding to the Schism mentioned 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular as some fansy Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret ut Schismatum semina tolerentur and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he citeth many Scriptures as above and sheweth that Bishop denoteth the Office Presbyter the Age. He citeth also Heb. 13. 17. Ibi saith he equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur And after he sheweth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate And in conclusion of that discourse making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth saith videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit What Jerom saith toto orbe decretum est is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council for no such Decree can be produced but that this Remedy of Schism in many places began then to be thought on and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the Fourth Century when Jerom wrote And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's but of Mans inventing and accordingly it succeeded for it proved worse than the Disease bringing in Tyranny and overturning Christ's Institution and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it as Jerom saith Man gave a Being to it and Satan improved it to carry on his designs The omnis eccleâ—iae cura that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa which he saith was the way of the Gospel and therefore either we must make Jerom say That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution and contrary to Apostolick practice which will make the way of the Primitive Church and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church not of the solitude of it in one Man excluding the rest of the Presbyters that he had a special inspection though he might not exercise Discipline by himself Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom is Ep. ad Heliodorum Fol. mihi 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter and shewing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist they have claves Regni Coelorum quodammodo diem judicij indicant and then addeth Illi Presbytero si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose Ep. ad Demet Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days into the Hands of Presbyters and not into the Hands of Bishops only whatever Priority they had above the other It is worth our Observation that several Popish Writers as zealous for Prelacy as ours are confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose that they find no way to Answer but to Condemn him of Error in this matter And Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. c. 15.
A Rational Defence OF Non-conformity WHEREIN THE Practice of NON CONFORMISTS IS Vindicated from Promoting Popery and Ruining the CHURCH imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of Separation ALSO His Arguments from the Principles and Way of the Reformers and first Dissenters are Answered And the Case of the present Separation truly stated and the blame of it laid where it ought to be And the way to Union among Protestants is pointed at By GILBERT RULE Minister of the Gospel Ezek. XLIII 10 11. Thou Son of Man shew the House to the House of Israel that they may be ashamed of their Iniquities and let them measure the pattern c. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the House and the fashion thereof c. LONDON Printed for Iohn Salusbury at the Rising Sun near the Royal-Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXIX THE PREFACE THE fierce Contentions of this Age about the Mint and Annise and Cummin of Religion I mean Religious Ceremonies that men have devised and imposed hath in a great measure hindered people from minding with that application that becometh the weightier things of the Law to wit the love of God and of our Neighbour and due regard to the promoting of true holiness and the Salvation of mens Souls the heavy Sufferings of many in England and in Scotland for not complying with such things as their imposing Task-masters did not so much as pretend to give Scripture warrant for are too notorious to be denied and too smarting to be forgotten How many thousands have been put on this sad Dilemma either to wound their Consciences or to be destroyed by taking away their Estates Liberties Livelihood and life it self But now the Lord in his infinite wisdom and tender mercy to an undeserving generation having by some late Revolutions first broken the Yoak of the Oppressors and made them for some time taste a little of the Cup that they had made their brethren drink deeply of and then gratiously and wonderfully delivered both contending parties from that utter ruine that was manifestly impending and made us like them that Dream'd and done exceeding abundantly for us above what we could think out done our faith as was foretold Luk. 18. 8. He hath by this surprising providence laid an Obligation on all Protestants and they who are such in earnest will mind it to turn to the Lord from every evil way that hath been in their heart or hand and particularly to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace to endeavour to speak and do the same things and where that cannot be attained through want of light and other sinful disorders of the Soul not easily nor soon removed without that pouring out of the Spirit from on high promised Isa. 33. 15. and else where which we should daily and earnestly pray and wait for To bear with one another in Love. They who know no other way to Unity but Uniformity will for ever miss of their design unless either all men were perfect in knowledge and wholly freed from irregular passions or Conscience were wholly laid to sleep and its use banished out of the World. Toward this blessed end peace among Protestants sober reasoning between Dissenting Parties may have some usefulness even Eristick Writings may prove Irenick if managed and read with that Spirit that becometh the gospel that is with due love to truth and peace and if I did not judge this book to be of that tendency I should never consent that it should see the light The Apostle giveth us two excellent directions for attaining this end Phil. 3. 16. beside the duty of forbearing one another till the Lord clear mistakes to them who are out of the way which he doth more than insinuate ver 15. but alas even about these ways to peace we contend as will appear in this Treatise Yet in my opinion the Apostle doth there clearly hold forth that there is a rule to which all are obliged to conform their actions and principles and particularly Church Administrations Let us walk by the same rule In all reason this rule must be Divine in that it is here generally injoyned to be minded and that by all Christians Is it imaginable that the Apostle intendeth to oblige all the Churches to take a rule of mans making for directing them how they shall please God Besides Church or humane Canons never were or are like to be the same in all Churches nor indeed can they of the things that are left to the Church to order at her discretion that which is fit in one place may be most unfit in another Wherefore if the Apostle had aimed at these he would have spoken of Rules not a rule We have then cause to think that the way to Church peace is to take the Word of God for the rule by which all the affairs of his House should be ordered If we would enjoyn nothing peculiar to Religion to be observed but what is warranted there And would not be too busie in making Canons for determining these things that are Extrinsick to Religion its Rites common to it with other solemn actions further than necessity requireth and in these determinations keep within the bounds of the general directions of the Word of God If we would do all things in the Church decently and in order and then make nothing such by our Will and Authority but enjoyn the Observation of these things that Scripture hath declared to be such or nature and civil custom hath made such If we would content our selves with that decency and order that was in the Apostolick Church Our Controversie would soon be at an end It is true even where Scripture is taken for the rule there might be some different apprehensions about the meaning of this rule what it enjoyneth but they who sincerely seek the mind of God in his words and depend on him for the light of his Spirit readily will either find what they seek or will soberly and peaceably differ from their brethren But when this rule is laid aside and mans wisdom must injoyn what is fit in God's Worship even though they be Learned Wise and Holy men and in authority in the Church yet not infallibly guided and much more when any of these Qualities are wanting there can hardly he an end of controversie it will be hard to set bounds to their multiplicity of which the Popish Church is a fatal Witness and hard to bring them to an end by composing them unless blind obedience be asserted at least as to some things And how many things these shall be who knoweth The other Direction that the Apostle giveth in that place is let us mind the same things Vnity in design is very conducive to Vnity in Heart and Practice When all have one end before them they will the more readily fall into the same way leading to that end as when many are travelling to the
to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before
a mind to expose the present Non-conformists as far degenerate from their Ancestors in the same Profession But of this more in its due place Sect. 3. He complaineth p. 2. of his own hard Usage on the like Occasion His Sermon entituled The Mischief of Separation was indeed solidly refuted by several Non-conformists and in that sence his Sermon was hardly used but I never heard before that hard Arguments were counted hard Vsage from an Adversary and if Bishop Jewel had no harder Usage for his Sermon there was no need of this Complaint unless it were to make his own hard Fate the more conspicuous by so venerable a Parallel This Reverend Author should consider That tho' we owe and give all due deference to the Memory of Bishop Jewel and to the Worth of Dr. Stillingfleet for their Labours in Defence of Protestantism yet it is neither Ingratitude nor Incivility in us to defend the purity of Gospel-Worship Worship against their Assaults We honour them but retain our Liberty of dissenting from them and of owning our Dissent when they mistake and are out of the way We call no man Rabbi having one Master CHRIST whose written Word we make the Rule of our Faith and Worship But one great part of the Doctor 's hard Vsage lieth in this That it hath been maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that he was put on that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise Persecution I confess Malice to suggest Evil and over-easiness to believe it is a thing too common among Dissenting Parties the Lord heal these Distempers on both hands but the particular Ground of this Charge on his Antagonists should have been mentioned If any have suspected that he was put on the Work if the work be good that doth extenuate the fault of such Suspicion I know no Evil in following either the Advice or Command of others to do our Duty So that hither to there is no Ground for the heavy Charge of Malice and malign Credulousness If any have judged his Design that is not fair dealing such Secrets are to be left to the Judgment of him who knoweth the Hearts But tho' I have a great deal of Charity in reference to the Intentio Operantis yet it is not so easie to pass a favourable Judgment on the Intentio Operis but he endeavoureth afterward his Vindication in this where I shall attend him Sect. 4. His professed Design in preaching that Sermon was only his just apprehension That the Destruction of the Church of England under a pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the likeliest Means to bring it Popery in Here he supposeth if I understand what he saith that the Protestant Dissenters aim at the destruction of the Church of England or at least that Non-conformity tendeth to destroy it than which no imagination can be more groundless nor can I conceive what should give cause to such a thought unless it be an extravagant Idea that some men frame to themselves of the Church of England as if her Essence consisted in the Ceremonies and the removing of these were the destruction of the Church We who Dissent from that which they call the Church of England are far from such low and dishonourable thoughts of Her we look on her as a Reformed part of the Church of God professing the Protestant Religion in opposition to the Errours of Popery but mixing this True Religion with some humane Ceremonies and therefore we think that opposing of these Ceremonies is so far from tending to the Destruction of the Church that it conduceth much to reforming of Her But suppose the Ceremonies were good and lawful things it is still a strange Notion and inconsistent with the Sentiments concerning them that our Brethren do profess that they are indifferent things and of no necessity If they be so what hazard is there of the destruction of the Church from their being laid aside If the Non-conformists had their wish it would inferr no other Alteration in the Church but the removal of such Accidents which the A betters of them do say That possunt adesse vel abesse sine subjecti interitu such Incoherences would not have been expected from so Learned a Pen. Sect. 5. It is also unfairly to say no worse hinted That Non-conformists Zeal against Popery is but pretended and that the real Design is to destroy the Church of England we can clear our selves of both before a higher Bar and therefore lay little weight on such Suggestions neither do we meerly dislike the Ceremonies because they are Popish he knoweth that we have other Arguments against them I hope Non-conformists shew their Zeal against Popery in other things Nor do we desire the Destruction of the Church that these Ceremonies may fall to the Ground but the removing of the Ceremonies that the Church may be more acceptable to him who can make her stand in despight of the Gates of Hell. If he charge us with the Church's Ruin because our Divisions about the Ceremonies may tend to it For answer Let it be considered who giveth culpably the Rise to these Divisions Whether they who forbear the Ceremonies because Sinful or they who do violently impose them tho' Indifferent in their Apprehension But this will afterwards fall to be further discoursed I deny not that Papists design the Ruin of the Church of England but not as Ceremonious but as Protestant they do not design to destroy Her by removing what the Non-conformists scruple but by taking away what they agree with Her in And therefore there is no Cause to think that the removing of the Ceremonies which Non-conformists desire though under a pretence of Zeal against Popery or under whatever other pretence should be one of the likeliest means to bring it in which our Author feareth Sect. 6. The Learned Dr. hath caught this Notion That Non-conformists by their Zeal against Popery are like to be Instruments of bringing it in and he seemeth to be very fond of this fine Conceit runneth away with it at a great rate is confirmed in it from the proceedings of Papists p. 2. starteth a Paradox p. 3. As it seemeth to unthinking People like the Non-conformists that when Papists 〈◊〉 appear no longer in that Work others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry it on for them and these unthinking people are carried away with meer no se and pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most passion and with least understanding against is and more to this purpose One may think it little Glory for the highly Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to labour in refuting such a contemptible Adversary as he here representeth But their Wisdom and Learning and Reasons for what they hold will I hope find more Equitable and less Supercilious Judges in the world neither will Hectoring stop their Mouths though they are ready to be silent to plain
to Primitive Institution To give some Instances How many Reformations do we read of in the Jewish Church which no doubt were approved of God and rejoiced in by Good Men in so far as they were a casting off of false Gods and a worshipping of Jehovâ—h and yet had this nigrum Theta set on them by the Spirit of God that the high plâ—ces still remained and the People still Sacrificed in them yet only to Jehovah This is noted even of Sâ—lomâ—n 1 Kin. 3. 2 3. and it 's like it was one of his first Steps of Degeneracy tho' the want of a Temple might seem to have excused it yet it is noted as a Fault as Pisâ—aâ—â—r observeth and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attamen only importeth no less It is also noted of Manesseth in his last and best daies 2 Chron. 33. 17. and of Azariah 2 King. 15. 5. and of Jotham 2 King. 15. 35. and of many others which need not be mentioned Now is it imaginable that none of the Godly in Judah were dissatisfied with this Depraâ—atiâ—n of God's VVorship nor scrupled to leave the Temple and to go to the high places to worship and if there were any such Might not all this be applied to them Was it for the Honour of the Reformation Was that the way to preserve the Worship of Jehovah Mast Reformers be charged with a wrong Way of Worship If this had been an insigâ—ificant Declamation against them so is it now against us To come nearer home Do not all the soundest Protestants rejoice in the Lutheran Reformation as to the main and yet blame it in some things Were not all English Protestants glad of what King Hen. 8. did against the Pope and in some other points of Religion and yet they thought not fit so to applaud that Setlement as to look after no further Reformation Why then should it be thought in us a disgracing of the Reformation that we desire some things to be still mended Sect. 17. We thank him for his Charity that he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuites but misregard his Saying That we do their Work a groundless and unproved Assertion I wish there were no Ground for Recrimination which I shall forbear If his Forty Years Meditation have enabled him to prove the present Episcopacy agreeable to the Institution of Christ and to the best Churches we must yield the Cause but we intend to hear his Proofs first It is a needless Question that he asketh Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Setlen â—ut Seeing he knoweth that we blame the first Setlement eatenus tho' we applaud it in the main and what he cited out of Dr. Taylor the Martyr p. 11. saith no more but that some Holy Men discovered the Evil of Popery and laid down their Lives in opposition to it but had not yet come to see the Evil of some of the Appurtenances of Popery Dr. Taylor and others rejoiced to see God worshipped in English which had been in Latin as by Parrots but did not see the Evil of such a Frame of Worship having known no other So the same Dr. Tayâ—or when Bp. Bonâ—er was about degrading him Swore by St. Peter Acts and Monuments p. 174. as Joseph by the Life of Pharaoh but that doth not justifie such a practice Sect. 18. He now undertaketh p. 11 c. to make it appear that the Jesuitical Party had a great hand in the beginning of the Separation as he calleth it How doth this consist with what he had said That he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuits That Papists did not Separate at first in Queen Elizabeth's Daies we can give no Account knowing that Policy not Conscience often governeth their Actions That Non-conformists did go along with the Church in all her practices he largely insisteth on afterward and there it is to be considered whether it was so or not and if o what is our Concern in it He telleth a long Story of Jesuits imployed under the Disguise of more zealous Trotestants to oppose the Liturgy c. and to set up a Separation the truth of which I shall not dispute for it hath alwaies been the way of that active party to endeavour the Dividing of them that are not of their Communion But I know not what Blame that can reflect upon the Non-conformists or their practices I do not doubt the same party had a hand in the Divisions of Calvinists from Lutherans and are willing to take all occasions to divide that they may ruin but if the Lord turn it to Good and to their Disappointment and if his Servants keep his Way while they part from the way of other Men let the Jesuits do their worst and let us do our Duty there is neither harm nor blame in it Were it not very easie for us 〈◊〉 we had any confidence in such Arguments to shew what a hand Jesâ—its haâ—e in setting on our Adversaries in such peremptory cleaving to their Indifferent Ceremonies that they will rather see the Church torn in a thousand pieces than part with one of them and in prosecuting Men tho' never so found in the Articles of the Church's Doctrine and Innocent and Holy in their Conversation because they cannot yield over the Belly of Scripture-Light and of their Consciences to the Use of these Trifles Doth not this look more like a Design of Jesuits to embroil the Church that they may ruine her while such measures are unaccountable and the Admiration of all the Reformed Churches that behold our Differences Sect. 19. Whether the Papers he speaketh of and the Confession of Heath the Jesuit and the Letter mentioned have any thing of Truth or be a Sham as many such things have been in our daies it were such a wild-Goose chase to follow forth the Enquiry as I do not hope to come to the end of it and it were not Operae pretium to find the Truth of it That Coleman Hallingham and Benson are named in the Letter and also recorded by Mr. Fuller and others as forward Non-conformists proveth no more but that the cunning Jesuits knew how to insinuate into the most Unwary as these with Button are represented to be by their forwardness beyond others as appeareth Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book 9. Pag. 81. Pag. 108. Where he saith they cut-did all of their own Opinion And was there ever a Party among whom some might not be found fit Tools by their Indiscretion to be imployed by cunning Artificers for raising Troubles without casting a Reflection of Blame on the whole Party But our Author should have at the same time taken notice out of the same Historian p. 76. that the Bishops in 5 Eliz. 1563. being impowered by their Canons began to urge Subscriptions to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and by so doing gave Rise to these Mens and others appearing as they did and branded the Refusers with the odious Name
the Church The Bishops shewed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching A few remarks on this will serve to clear our way 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren in that they were getting Laws made to force them to that which they could not perswade them to by the Gospel but this is the Old Spirit of that party which still createth trouble to the Church 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment and these he nameth Gilby Whittingham are among them whom Fuller placeth in the Ranck of fierce Non-conformists sheweth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled 3. He omitteth to tell us that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy nor use the Ceremonies which Mr. Fuller Lib. 9. p. 76. informeth us of that not only these fiery men as he calleth them but even the moderate Non-conformists as Mr. Fox Mr. Lawrence Humfrey refused to subscribe 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops that they suffered these Men to Preach notwithstanding of their Non-conformity Indeed there was cause for it they were able and useful men and the Church had much need of their Labours Fuller saith p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch where no brighter Light was seen before where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work and how sorrily he performed it If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation they needed not to be afraid of Separation Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us that these Non-conformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies and gaining Ground they called them the Livery of Antichrist and enflamed the People and this was the first Occasion of pressing Vniformity with Rigor Some were silenced as kindness had made them Presumptuous this made them Clamorous Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered by their Canons began to shew their Authority in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented before B. Grindal one of the most moderate but pressed to Rigor by the rest who asked them have we not a Godly Princess speak is she Evil A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain than a Protestant Bishop That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies is neither to be doubted nor wondered at so did our Lord and Master and his Apostle Paul It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded that being their Commission if they spake Falshood or Truth in an undue manner they were liable to Correction What our Author calleth inflaming the People others will call faithful warning of them against what might displease God and defile their Consciences Any who enflameth them to unsober or unpeaceable principles or practices let them bear their blame I see nothing in their Carriage under the Bishops forbearing of them that deserâ—eth the Name of presumption nor under their Sufferings that should be called Clamorousness as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva how they were used But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them that differ from them and reproach them if they say they feel it Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists or free the Bishops of it Sect. 32. He saith further p. 19. at the end About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers began to have separate Meetings where they Preached and Prayed and had the Sacraments Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary the true Cause and Original of the Separation tho' somewhat unfavourably represented the cause of it was they could not have Gods Ordinances without Mans Inventions their Ministers being silenced who administred them purely and tho' but some of them at first were silenced yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced nor could they live without them So that it was not Exasperation but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances that made them take that course This account of it themselves give as the Dr. hath it p. 20. before the Bishop of London whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal charging them with lying pretences without any Ground mentioned and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop charging them with Condemning the Reformation Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on is Beza's advice to the Ministers and people who tho' he sheweth his dislike of the Ceremonies and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen and the Bishops And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments notwithstanding of the Ceremonies that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation And to Ministers he saith that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not not being able at present to get a sight of the Book but some other Citations already examined make me jealous especially seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them that the Ceremonies are not of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them But whatever were Beza's opinion Non-conformists of old and late took the Word of God and not the Authority of Men for the Rule of their Faith and Practice They honour such as Beza and are ready to receive Instruction from them but must have leave to examine all by Scripture as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul. Again Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together because restrain'd by the Magistrate That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines and is to be examined afterward but he disliked their publick appearance in that case which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate For they had hired a Hall in London as publick as any Church for their Meetings Christ's Apostles were private with the Doors shut when they might not be publick and so should we and yet not give over
Preaching and Hearing when Men forbid us We should do it peaceably and inoffensively but do it notwithstanding For his Advice to the People I cannot approve it yet doth it not reach our Case for he adviseth to Conformity for the present with express mention of their Hope of a further Reformation which we are out of all hope that ever our Clergy will yield to In Beza's Resolution of a Case mentioned by the Dr. p. 23. I desiderate one cause of Separation from a Church to wit Imposing unlawful Terms of Communion unless either this be comprehended under the right use of the Sacraments that he mentioneth or such withdrawing be not properly a Separation but a being driven away Sect. 34. He saith this Advice of Beza's put an effectual stop to the Separation I find no such thing in History but rather the contrary The same opinion he citeth of Gaulter ep dedicat in homil ad 1. Ep. ad Corinth Zanchie ep lib. 2. p. 391. where Gualter complains of the Lyes and Prejudices against the Church of England I wish it have not been Lyes written by that party that made him write so and Zanchie is even for Ministerial Conformity It is an easie thing to gather Scraps and Sentences out of mens Writings that represent them as speaking what they never thought and nothing is more ordinary with this Author than to perswade himself at least to endeavour to perswade his Reader that all the World are of his opinion It is enough to us in this matter that the Reformed Divines beyond Seas did not use the Ceremonies but have condemned them and that on such Grounds as make them unlawful to be used to wit that they are Vain Worship Additions to the Word of God the Symbols of Popish Idolatry c. and if notwithstanding of all this any of them would perswade us to use them their Doctrine doth hinder us to obey their advice which we look on as an overlash of Charity to the then good Bishops of England who were Labouring to Reform the Church from Popery Sect. 35. He telleth us next Sect. 7. of a New Generation of fiercer Non-conformists the peaceable ones being worn out It is not unusual for Adversaries to represent true Zeal as fierceness but if there was undue forwardness among them we defend not the Faults of Men but the Truth of God which they owned There was a sinful fierceness among some of Christ's Disciples when they called for Fire from Heaven Luke 9. 54 55. but this was no Argument against their cause We with sad Hearts behold the scandalous Fierceness that is among some Antiprelaâ—ists at this day but must not change our Principles for that And was there then and is there now no fierceness on the otherside If we may judge of former days by the present we may rationally ascribe the fierceness of some of the Suffering Party to that of the persecuting Party as the Exciting cause for oppression maketh a Wise Man mad Eccles. 7. 7. for the Complaint that Mr. Fox maketh of them which he Citeth out of Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 9. p. 106. If the Circumstances be considered it will be found not to prove what the Dr. bringeth it for We must know then out of the same Author that the Complaint in this Letter was against some particular men in Magdalen College who were no Representatives of the Non-conformists that it was not occasioned by any of their Principles or Religious Practices but by a particular injury done by these men to Mr. Fox as he thought And Mr. Fox was as likely to be byassed in the matter in Controversie between him and these men he complained of as they were The Matter was his Son Samuel had left the College and gone beyond Sea without leave either of his Father or the College and at his return was suspected of Popery and for this he was by that party that Mr. Fox is so angry with expelled the College Beside all this any who readeth that Letter of Mr. Fox's may see a Strain and meet with Expressions very unbecoming Old Reverend and Good Mr. Fox who had always professed himself a Non-conformist tho he had more Latitude about the use of the Ceremonies than some others had Factiosa ista puritanuorm capita isti ter puri puritani and some other foul Reflections with the odious name that Enemies gave to that Party are very unsavory from such a Pen But Age and supposed Injury must bear the blame of the peevish strain that is too manifest throughout that whole Letter It were a hard case if the faults either real or supposed of some were always to be charged on all the Party The Dr's own Party would be black enough if they were thus dealt with and even the Historian no Friend to the Non-conformists calls this Letter such a Strain of Rhetorick as once Tully used pro Domo sua and imputeth the too much passion in it to the unjust Affront offered to him Sect. 36. Next the Dr. doth highly resent the Admonitions First and Second presented in the Name of the Non-conformists to the Parliament by Mr. Thomas Cartwright But I see not by what he citeth out of these Admonitions wherein the bitter Zeal of that Party appeared Neither that they despised the old Trifling Controversy about Garments and Ceremonies for these were still the Grounds of their Non-conformity tho they complained also of other Grievances Neither do I find that they said all was out of Course in the Church they owned the Protestant Religion but desired that the Reformation might be more through by laying aside some of the Remainders of Popish Superstitions formerly overlookt I wonder why the Dr. should startle so much at their complaining of the Liturgy Bishops and Arch-bishops the Way of câ—lling their Clergy the Ceremonies annexed to the Sacraments which are the Grievances by these Admonitions laid before the Parliament with an humble Petition for redressing of them Seeing he knoweth that these are the very things that our Controversie is Conversant about and tho' all these be not the Grounds of our withdrawing from their Worship yet all of them are such things as we are grieved with and desire a Reformation of That he calleth them bold and groundless Assertions is a more bold and groundless Assertion than any of them for he knoweth Grounds have been given which it were better to refute than rail at It is also strange that he saith That these Admonitions gave the true occasion to the following Practice of Separation when himself assigneth another Cause of it before this p. 18 19. and yet another that he dateth it from long after to wit the Indulgence Praef. p. 23. Sometimes he layeth it on the Jesuits Praef. p. 11. and indeed he knoweth not wheâ—e to lay it missing the true Cause which is Episcopal Rigour in their unscriptural Impositions on the one hand and Consciencious Obedience to the Word of God on the other That this Cause
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church
very Constitution of a Church in which we differ from them as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did of whom he saith that they held That nothing could justifie Separation from the Church but such corruptions which overthrow the Being of it And he saith The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation lay in this and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church For proving of this he sheweth That the Separatists thought nothing could justifie their Separation but that which nullified the Church and it is no wonder for they minded nothing but an active Separation and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed It is true they mention the Service as one of their Pleas for Separation but not barely as unlawful to be used but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded For what he addeth p. 35 c. that the Non-conformists when they would disprove the Separation only proved the Church of England to be a True Church It is no wonder that they minded no more seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause But Did they ever teach that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful which is the one half of the Controversie that we now manage He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists p. 36. at the end That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this without giving the least advantage against our Cause for we do not separate our selves but the Door is shut against us by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies which we cannot use without Sin and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these Again We do not continually separate from the Church but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out the Separatists could say neither of these That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is is evident for they were men of so much Sence and Reason as that they could not imagine it impossible that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church because of sinful Terms of Communion required They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus to refrain from the Communion of that Church if that Communion were denied to that Member unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans or at least consent to the tolerating of it Such is our Case we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church unless we will approve by our practice the Ceremonies which we judge sinful with what Face can they blame us for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them 1 Sam. 26. 19. They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord saying go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile because he waited not on the Temple Service And yet the Necessity that he was under of abstaining from it was not so great as ours That was Bodily Hazard ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God. Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted as any that readeth and understandeth them may perceive What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson and Ball against Can is nothing against us to wit That the Church of England is a true Church From p. 39. He sheweth that Non-conformists held That the Corruptions of the Church of England were not such as did over-throw the Being and Constitution of it which we willingly yield to What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists p. 40 41. about Forms of Prayer and the English Liturgy shall be examined in its due place if the Lord permit I know some Non-conformists have had and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have But as now there are so of old there were others that could not comply with it What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian if he thought them Lawful to be used which is our Question I know not why he should be reckoned a Non-conformist But indeed there is nothing of that in what the Dr. Citeth p. 41 42. What he bringeth p. 42 43 44 45 46 47. out of several Non-conformists to shew that the Ministry Discipline and Hierarchy of the Church of England is not Antichristian nor the Church-Antichrist we are not concerned to disprove and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing it being wholly beside the question Some things he maketh them say that deserve a little Animadversion but I will not now Digress to take notice of them Sect. 12. He proceedeth Sect. 12. To give Accompt of the Independent Separation and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation I confess there is a present Separation that these Reasons do hold against for that same Separation doth still continue But he doth not prove his point unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude that we should use the Ceremonies rather than forbear Church-Communion with the Prelatists But his Reasons for what he saith we shall attend in their course What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists by the breaking of Brown's Church in Midleborough and his jugling in the Matters of God I know not This long Story hath either no design which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts or an ill design which I am loth to impute to one of his Worth. However it be we disclaim all concern in it There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others as well as among Non-conformists That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Publick Assemblies a Cursed Convenâ—icâ—e it may be there was cause if Brown was such a bad Man as the Dr. maketh him But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissentions that followed to the Judgment of God on them this we are no way concerned to Apologize for Their way was Evil and it did not prosper If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil let him pass what Judgment he will on what befalleth us but till then Sobriety in judging is becoming No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them because of the Confusions and Ruin that followed in Germany on the Reformation We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us but we are not convinced that the Things in Controversy are to be
one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
necessity of Separation Ans. 1. The Dr. then maketh no difference between a Scruple that hath ground for it and one that hath none If he can make our Scruple appear to be groundless as he confesseth theirs to be he hath advantage against us Ans. 2. Is there no difference between having probable grounds for a Scruple and having no such grounds Is there any comparison between scrupling at using Religious Ceremonies that have no warrant in the word but are in general at least condemned in it and scrupling at some pretended Corruptions that no Scripture Condemneth Ans. 3. If the Dr's reasoning be good either we must bear with none that scruple unless we scruple the same thing Or we must bear with all that Scruple The first of these excludeth all Christian forbearance the last he will not alledge Ans. 4. He mentioneth Impositions as to Order and Discipline only that we may seem Imposers as well as his party is that is unreasonable not only because we can shew Christ's Laws for our Order and Discipline which he will not pretend to shew for the Ceremonies But also because we can bear with sober and faithful Brethren that cannot approve of all that we do which his Party will not Sect. 20. He mistaketh the Case when he insinuateth That we have no more but scruple of Conscience to plead The Dr. should not have alledged this till he or some of his party had answered all our Reasons of Scrupling in many Books neither touched by him or any other But now he will Knock down our cause with one blow He saith he put the Case as clear as possible to prevent all Subterfuges and slight Evasions He supposeth five scrupling Parties one at the Liturgy a Second at the Cross and Kneelling a Third at wrong gathered Churches a Fourth at Infant Baptism a Fifth at Preaching by set Forms and being stinted by an Hour-glass And he saith the Nature of the Case doth not vary according to these If this be the Dr's Herculean Argument we shall not need to fear his Strength so much as before Surely the Learned Dr's parts could let him see more Reason to bear with sober and intelligent men who dare not join with a Church in worshipping God by Religious Ceremonies not instituted by Christ than with Fantastick Quakers who cast off God's Ordinances because of an Hour-glass but that his prejudice doth in this darken his understanding But the Tendency of his Discourse seemeth to be either Church-Authority must lead us Blind-fold so as we must scruple nothing imposed or neither Scripture nor Reason shall limit our Fancy but we may scruple what we will. He saith well p. 76. and the Non-conformists before him had said it If they alledge Grounds to justifie themselves they must do it ex natura rei and not from the meer errour or mistake of Conscience We will most willingly join issue with him on this Condition provided the natura rei may be judged by Scripture as all the Worship of God should be If he can prove the Ceremonies that we scruple to be such as we may use without Sin or if we prove not the contrary let him call us as vile Separatists as he pleaseth If the Dr. had pleased at first to hang the matter on this Pin and not to have filled his Book with so many Citations to strengthen his Cause with Humane Authority he might have saved both himself and me all this labour that hitherto we have been at It is no great commendation either of the wisdom or of the sobriety of his Church that he saith Shâ— hath as much occasion cause he should have said to judge their the Presbyterians scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Quakers What followeth about occasional communion is answered above That which he citeth out of Mr. A. of the Assemby's being transported in the heat of Dispute is not so derogatory from that venerable Meeting as he would make it It is rare to find it otherwise with sinful men How many things did thus slip from the Pens of several of the Fathers that the Dr. will not approve But we do not hereby give up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren nor forsake the Assemblies Principles it is one thing not to approve all that men say and another thing to condemn the Cause that they plead for Sect. 21. Our Author doth next undertake Sect. 17. to shew how we have deserted the Principles of the old Non-conformists as to private Persons reforming Church-Discipline setting up new Churches and the preaching of Ministers when silenced by the Laws For the setting up of Churches and Discipline he citeth several Non-conformists against it without the Magistrate p. 78 79 80 81 82. To all which I answer That two things are expresly in these Citations that make what they condemned not to reach our Case For 1. They condemn private mens endeavouring a publick Reformation that belonging to the Magistrate so it is thrice expressed p. 81. out of Confut. of the Brownists Now we meddle not with a publick Reformation otherwise than by our Prayers and Advice as we have occasion which is there also expresly allowed by them but content our selves to serve God privately when we cannot do it publickly without Sin. To this same purpose is that which is cited out of Giffard p. 79. That tho' every one ought to keep a good Conscience yet no private Persons are to take on them publick Authority to reform If we do so blame us for it 2. These Non-conformists all along speak of private Persons reforming the Discipline of the Church Now what is done among us of that kind is done by Ministers who though in the State they are private persons and therefore are not to meddle with matters of that concern Yet in the Church they are publick persons and have Authority from God to dispense his Ordinances But I do not by what I have said intend to homologate all that the Dr. citeth out of these Non-conformists several things they assert that cannot well be defended but I shall not digress so far as to particularize them Sect. 22. I shall only say That had this Principle of not reforming the Ordinances of Christ by People among themselves till the Magistrate gave countenance taken alwaies place in the World not only Christianity had not come in the place of Judâ—ism but Arrianism had extinguished the Orthodox Profession Have we not Examples of People who were under Arian Bishops setting up new Bishops over themselves in Epiphan Haeres 73 Doth not Hilary exhort the People to separate from Auxentius their Arian Bishop adversus Arianos when yet there was no Orthodox Magistrate to countenance these things Yea had this Principle obtained there had been no Reformation from Popery in most places where now through the Lord's mercy it is Say not that our reforming of Worship and Discipline is not in things of that moment for tho' that be true yet it is not of
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
Proximate Right that one hath and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic nunc to join with and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church is that which doth actually make him a Member of it And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission whether it be the Dr's Crossing or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end for these are but the external declarative Signs not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation and therefore these are but the Tokens not the Foundation of Actual Membership But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned is ones being so Circumstantiated that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances here rather than elsewhere which is determined by his place of residence not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine but a Civil Constitution yet it hath its use for shunning confusion And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted is his being a Visible Believer Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions and his right may also be superseded and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances by his contradicting his profession by Heresie or Scandal Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists willful Deserters of the Church Atheists c. So every one that liveth in a Parish is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion which that Church doth sinfully require To clear this a little further consider that to make Actually and Compleatly a Member of a particular Church beside his residence there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person and that either Explicite or Implicite The Implicite consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person Word Sacraments Discipline The Implicite consent of the Person lyeth in ordinary using of or submission to these Now where the Church is willing and the Person is not and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause the Person may be charged with sinful Separation where the Person is willing but the Church is not And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal or by refusal unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions the Person is no Separatist but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation In this last case which is our case the Person is a Member affectu but not effectu This is to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand we are Members of the Church of England affectu i. e. Being by providence fixed in England where Christ's Truth is professed and his Ordinances administred we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under to join in the Ordinances without submitting to sinful Terms And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinanâ—es we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies for the present distress where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administred and there we are effectu Members where we thus ordinarily meet And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu for we declare a readiâ—ess whenever these unlawful barrs from Communion with her shall be removed that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast If after all this the Dr. or his Party will charge us as he doth with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles and Prevarication in manageing of them we must bear that injustice Sect. 10. He dealeth p. 105 106 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful I have â—o fully set down my opinion in this and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things tho' many of them may word them better that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth I will not defend He taketh up part of p. 107 108 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies to be Members of the Church nor excuse them from Separation I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs For it is not Occasional Communion alone but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her and so maketh us Members so far as we can and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholick principles This he highly derideth and laboriously refuseth p. 110 111 112 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch It is not their saith he Obligation to Peace and Vnity with the Church as Members of it that moveth but a certain Romantick fancy of Catholick Vnity Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations And therefore by the fault of the Imposers we have no other way to shew our owning the Church as a true Church but this Occasional Communion Let him call it a Romantick Fancy or what he will we separate from no true Church and much less frâ—m that where we live but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again he argueth from a supposition That if we were at Jerusalem where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and one should ask us what Church we were Members of If we should Answer we are fixed Members of no Church but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches Would they take such a Man for a Christian Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer as he feigneth for us for his own advantage I should in that case join my self to the purest Church that I could there meet with being at Liberty to choose and not prelimitted by my habitation if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion And then should Answer to the Question I am here free to join with you or any tolerable Church but do Actually join with you as the purest during my abode here When I
want not of every ministerial quality that is â—â—sirable but of such as is necessary for the Ordinances being so Administred as we may partake of them without Sin. If People do mistake in any of these and run into Separation without sufficient grounds thinking that fault of a Minister true or great or evident or intolerable which is not so we do not plead for this practice But we must not to shun that inconvenience say that it is in no case lawful I know no Truth but it may be abused by men of Corrupt minds as well as this I know there are faults in Ministers which render them in the secret Judgment of God and to the Jealousie of good Men no Ministers of Christ but of Satan which yet will not warrant Separation from them while they have Ordination unrepealed by a Church Sentence of Deprivation and Administer God's Ordinances so as the partaker of them is not involved in Sin. Gildas said of some Pastors in his time Apparet cum quem vos sacerdotes sciens ex corde dicit non esse eximium Christianum And O inimici Dei non Sacerdotes O liâ—â—atores malorum non pontifices traditores non sanctorum Apostolorum successores Impugnatores non Christi Ministri When we can apply all this to a Minister the Church ought to cast him out as unsavoury Salt But till that be done private Persons ought to withdraw from his evil Deeds but not from the Ordinances while they are pure I know this hath been and is a Controversie in our Neighbour Church of Scotland and hath given rise to much disquiet much Confusion and many Persecutions there I shall not much dip in it our Case being more clearly Stated and our withdrawing from the publick Assemblies being founded not on personal faults of Ministers but on sinful Impositions in Worship I have not met with one judicious Writer of that Nation nor one Minister that I remember of in private discourse who denieth in thesi that it is lawful to partake of the Ordinances from a Minister meerly on Accompt of his personal faults where the Ordinances that we are to partake of are incorrupted but they state the Controversie upon some Specialities in their Case One or Two little Manuscrâ—pts I have seen that in Thesi and with as much Confidence as little Reason deny the lawfulness of hearing a scandalous Minister To these I only oppose this one Argument Our Lord Commanded the Jews to receive the Ordinances from the Priests of that time who were most of them very bad men Matth. 8. 4. Luk. 17. 14. and what Christ bid them do we may lawfully do in the like case The Exceptions made against this Argument that I have met with are very Light as that the Priests were not so bad as ours 1. This is said without all Colour of Reason 2. Let them shew what degree of Scandal in a Minister will warrant such withdrawing and what not Again they object That the Ordinances could not be had but from these Priests Ans. If it had been unlawful to partake with them Christ would rather have had no Sacrifice offered than that People should sin in going about it He that preferreth Mercy to Sacrifice would never preferr Sacrifice to shunning of Sin. And beside this if the hazard of want of Ordinances could inferr the necessity of joining with these Priests so may the hazard of a sinful rending of the Church perswade to join in the Case in hand And further where the Ordinances can without any sinful circumstance be had from better hands I am far from advising any to attend the Administrations of bad men But in that Nation they had better grounds of their practice to wit Subjection to Prelacy required of them and that their faithful Pastors were turned out and others put in their Place But I leave this Debate as not being my present Work. Sect. 11. I now come to say a word of each of Mr. Baxter's four Ministerial Qualities in particular 1. Knowledge and Vtterance The Ordainers are the Authoritative Judges of these and the People are not without very great and manifest cause to question what is in this done by the Guides of the Church yet must they see with their own Eyes and lament the defects of this kind that they evidently see but not separate while the Ordinances are not intolerably depraved tho' there be considerable defects The Dr. never heard that the Apostle bid People turn away from their Minister for want of Vtterance neither was such a Command needful Nature and Reason injoining That if a man cannot speak audibly and intelligible People should not come to hear a noise so that they cannot tell what is uttered His declamation against Peoples judging of a Minister's Knowledge is out of the way we do not make them Triers as he supposeth neither give them Authority and we think for all his scorn that tho' many â—annot well discern a Minister's Knowledge in Controverise yet most can tell whether he understandeth the plain Truths of the Gospel when they hear him discourse of them If men by prejudices or want of due application of their minds as the Dr. speaketh mistake about these I shall hardly call them very good men as he supposeth they may be The Second Quality is That a Minister be not Heretical Except Taunts and personal Reflections on Mr. B. I see not what the Dr. answereth to this We do not say That Peoples thinking a man Heretical when he crosseth their humours is a good ground to separate on as the Dr. would have it thought neither is it needful for discerning this that all the People be Learned Divines or have read Epiphanius and Binnius as he talketh but we think they that diligently read the Scripture and pray for spiritual Understanding may discern when manifest Errour against the Foundation of Christian Doctrine is taught and where they find this to be the way of a Minister may withdraw from him I wish the Dr. would speak more plain that we might see his mind more clearly than we can do by these jeers Doth he think there are none Learned among the People or Doth he think that none of them that want Literature can discern Truth from Errour in any Case or Doth he think dangerous Errour being discerned to be ordinarily preached People should attend on that Preaching instead of the wholsome Food of their Souls and not seek better means unless the Bishops will give leave If he be not positive in all these he saith nothing against Mr. B. nor Us in this matter Sect. 12. The Third Quality is That Ministers be not Opposers of Godliness That is not to be understood of what people will call so without cause nor of suspected malignity nor of open opposing of it in the mans private actings by word or deed nor of close hints in Sermons against it nor breaking out sometimes into more open maligning of it But when
the 3d. Sort if there be no other cause of separating from him but that I think under correction of the more Wise and Learned that they should rather cede of their right with a Salvo than break the Peace and Unity of the Church or disoblige the Magistrate and therefore they ought to give their consent By this means their right that Christ hath given them is not alienated it being by them on that occasion Asserted and the Rending of the Church is prevented Sect. 15. Let us now hear what the Dr. will say to make good against us his charge of our separating on this Head. He saith They have a Legal Establishment and Law and Vsurpation are contraries Ans. Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of a Civil Office are contrary Also Establishment by the Gospel and Usurpation of a Church-Office are inconsistent but Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of an Office in the Church are very consistent one with another Because the Office of the Ministry is no institution of Man but of Christ and he giveth Laws to regulate that and other affairs in his House and hath not left these to be ordered by the Laws of men I thought the Dr. had been for Episcopal Government in the Church not for Erastianism Mr. B. is cited p. 134. asserting That all that come into the places of Ejected Ministers the people not consenting are Vsurpers that the Magistrate's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church without or before the Peoples consent nor will it always oblige the People to consent and forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismatical because they do it not For disproving of this the Dr. first leaveth it to others to judge of the dangerous Consequences of this an Act being passed by King and Parliament for removing of some Pastors and putting in others And I desire that these others who judge of this matter may consider that the ordering of the Ministerial Call and the fixing a Religion between Pastor and People do fall directly under the Cognizance and Laws of him who is the Head and Lawgiver in his Church even Jesus Christ and under the Laws of men only as the Civil Peace may be concerned therein and let them also consider that we by owning or disowning a Pastoral Relation which the Magistrate hath passed an Act for or against do manage our principle and order our practice with that peaceableness and caution that the Magistrate may as little as possible either know it or be offended at it and if we be Convicted of a Transgression of the Magistrate's Law we patiently suffer the Penalties Let them I say Consider these things and withal Consider that to differ from the Magistrate in Principle and Practice of Religion was the Lot of the Primitive Christians and then let them judge if they be Impartial Men whether any such dismal consequences as the Dr. insinuateth are like to follow Sect. 16. He objecteth next On those Grounds when Solomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadock is his room any part of the People might have pleaded they never consented to Zadock's coming in The Question is whether it belonged to the King or the People Ans. There is so little shadow of Reason or affinity to the question in Hand in this Argument that it is no small Derogation from the understanding of so Learned a Man once to mention it for the chusing of a High-Priest belonged neither to King nor People but the Succession was fixed in one Family by the Lord and it was neither in the Power of the King nor People to chuse any but the nearest Heir of that Lin◠Wherefore what Solomon did in this Case was no more but to inflict a Civil Punishment on Abiathar to wit Exile from Jerusalem where only the Office of High-Priest could be Exercised and Confinement to Anathoth And this was done for his Accession to Treason against Solomon And Solomon's putting Zadock in his place was no more but obeying the Commandment of God who had promised the Priest-hood to Phinehas whose nearest Heir Zadock was And it is the opinion of many Divines that Abiathar's right to the Priesthood was not so good as Zadock's Another Argument like the rest he hath p. 135. is That it follows that a smaller part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and chuse other Governours in opposition to those Established by Law and they may do it in one case as well as in another Which makes me wonder saith he at those who dare call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any men do enjoy their Estates This is a Confounding of things most disparate one from another a taking away all distinction of Civil and Church power We utterly deny his consequence That because people notwithstanding of an Act of Parliament may adhere to their Pastors therefore they may chuse other civil Governours for of these he must speak or speak nothing to the purpose They may not do it in the one case as in the other because the one case is regulated by Christ's Law the other by Mens Law. But I now smell out a mistake in the Dr. that maketh such Choler and Zeal against us That we count them Usurpers of their places that is their Benefices Let him no more fear that we own their Title to these to be as good as Men have to their Estates both being disposable by the same Law But all that we have said is about their Usurping the Charge of Souls Of which we Assert two things 1. That there is no necessary Connexion de facto between a good Title to the one and to the other though de jure I mean divino beneficium sequitur officium 2. That the same Law may give a Title to an Ecclesiastick Estate which giveth Title to other Estates but another Law and not that must give a Title to having the charge of Souls and must make a Relation between Pastor and People And the reason of this Difference I bring from that famous saying of Constantine the Great to the Church-men that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 17. He hath yet another Argument to wit That this overthroweth the Reformation for the Papists had the very same Plea that these Men have now to wit that the Magistrate had no Power to dissolve the Relation between them and their former Church-guides Ans. If the Dr. will say that the Popish Clergy had no otherwise forfeited their Title to the charge of Souls than by the Magistrates Law then their Plea and ours were the same But I suppose he as well as we will fix that forfeiture on another Foundation to wit their Heresy and Idolatry that they led the People into warranted the People to withdraw from them as none of Christ's Ministers and disobliged the People from owning any further Relation to them as their Pastors And this not only warranted
the reason why the Orthodox might Worship God apart from the Arians was because it had been their sin to join in corrupted Worship though we do not equal the owning of the Arian Doctrine and using the Ceremonies yet we reckon the one to be Sin as really as the other and we may not commit a smaller Sin to enjoy Communion with a Church more than we may commit a greater Sin for that end And we are not obliged to live without the Ordinances of God when we cannot have them with the Church without Sin more than the Oxthodox were who lived under the Arians Sect. 3. Tho' the Dr. it seems had designed this Section for stating of the Question upon which his whole Book is founded I see no formal Stating of it Concessions are but preparatory to the Stating of a Controversie except that he saith he had told Mr. B. that all our dispute was whether the upholding separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine Established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a sinful Separation or not This is no sufficient stating of the Controversy between the Prelatists and Dissenters about Separation Two things in it are not sufficiently clear and some things needful to be minded in our present Controversy are left out The First thing that is not clear is That he will not allow any fault in Doctrine to justifie Separation but what is in the Established Doctrine that is either that which is contained in the Churches confession of Faith or is setled by Law. But it is evident there may be such faults in Doctrine as may make them that regard their Souls Health withdraw from a Church which are not here comprehended that is when gross Errors are commonly taught contrary to the Doctrine contained in the Publick Confession of Faith and which is Established by Law That this is a Case supposeable yea that it ought to have been supposed with reference to our Controversy appeareth in that it is most common in England for Ministers who have subscribed the 39. Articles to teach Doctrines quite contrary to them as I observed above It is no rarity for unconscientious men to subscribe to whatever is imposed rather than lose a Benefice and mean while to Hold and Teach what they please notwithstanding of such Subscription Now if a Church should become so corrupt that Heresie is commonly taught though the Orthodox Faith be Established ought not People to withdraw from that Church Or if many teach dangerous Doctrine contrary to established Truth ought not People withdraw from such Teachers Especially when there is no way to get this unsound teaching removed or restrained Sect. 4. Another thing in the Dr's State of the Question is unclear to wit That where the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be right there should be no Separation What he meaneth by these is a Controversy it self and he is at a great deal of Pains to clear what he meaneth by this Term Part. 3. p. 334. whither I referr the Debate with him about it But what if any part of Worship be unlawful call it Substantial or Circumstantial or what he will Or what if something be Annexed to the True Worship of God which is sinful but yet so peremptorily imposed as none shall worship God without it I ask the Dr. whether in this case we may separate though we scruple not any part of that worship that he is pleased to call Substantial Worship Sect. 5. Some things are also left out by the Dr. in his Stating of the Controversy which were needful to have been minded As 1st To clear what he meaneth by Separation I have above shewed that sometimes they that are charged with Separation are meerly Passive in it sometimes they are Active The First is when the Church casteth them out because they cannot submit to her Impositions The Second when they take offence at something in the Church and therefore leave her but are not cast out by her but have free and peaceable Access to all her Ordinances In the first Case which is ours if they causlesly scruple at the Impositions they may be charged with Ignorance or Errour of Conscience or Peevishness and Willfulness but how they can be charged with Separation I know not more than a Banished Man can be blamed as a Fugitive from his Country And if they have good cause to scruple the Impositions I see not how any blame can be fixed on them at all 2. He should have shewed whether by Separation he meaneth casting off all ties to have Communion with that Church more than with another Church that professeth the true Faith as a Man or Company that live in Holland have no more Tie to Communicate in England than in France c. or a present forbearing of Communion because of sinful Terms with owning an Obligation to communicate with this Church when these Bars shall be removed In the one case all relation to that Church in particular is cast off in the other not so It is but a suspending the Exercise of Communion as a Church-member not a disowning it or casting it off Sect. 6. He is defective in mentioning no other alledged grounds of Separation but false Doctrine Established or wrong substantial parts as he calleth them of Worship He knoweth little of the Controversy that he manageth if he knew not that other grounds are alledged and therefore it had been fair to have fixed the Question on them whether it be lawful to separate on such and such grounds It is true his question may include all the grounds that can be alledged beside the two mentioned but that which is the main Hinge of our Controversy should have been mentioned in stating of the Question 4. It being confessed on both Hands that there is a sinful Separation it should have been one part of his question where the Sin of this Separation is chargeable whether on the Imposers or the Scruplers of those things that cause the Separation But he is willing to set his Church beyond all imaginable blame and to put the Question only whether the Dissenters have any blame or not 5. It should not have been omitted to enquire whether the Grounds alledged for Separation lie in things really Evil or only fanâ—ied to be such And again whether the Evil of them be such as will bear the weight of Separation Sect. 7. I shall then endeavour to state the Question more fully and clearly than the Dr. hath done There are indeed divers questions on which this question about Separation doth depend and therefore our Controversy cannot be represented in one single question to which an Affirmative or Negative Answer will suffice It is then 1. A great part of our Controversy seeing the Liturgy as to the Frame of it and Ceremonies are by the Clergy thought indifferent and so unnecessary That God may be acceptably Worshipped without them and the
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act and another thing then private dealing with a person the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person in Preaching they are in more general Terms Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man I know not 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercisâ—d because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly and personally inflicted on Offenders and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn hic num without fault aâ—d where it is fâ—ulâ—ily forborn it doth nullifie the being of a Church yet it must not always be forborn His 2. answer is If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly and debar in that Case Reply why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick and the Law thus to clash especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubriâ—k are setled by Law And he doth by this fairly yield that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing parturiunt montes Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself Sect. 16. that the neglects and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed To this he hath several Answers The 1. is That the question is whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches this I pass for I think it doth not The 2. is It is easier to complain of this or separate then find out a way to remedy it We propose the Scripture remedy to wit to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common The 3. is That therâ— is not that necessity of Church Discipline as in the primitive times the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders and so to vindicate the honour of the Church And to confirm this he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tuâ—es petrus and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors as Augustine Theodoret c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus and his followers proving that the Church and Republick are distinct Societies tho made up of the same Persons that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World that the Rules Laws Punishments and immediate ends of Church-State are different Let him no more tell us of the Church of England but of the Civil Laws of England as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed and ordered by I shall not digress to refute this Assertion but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ and his Apostles who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs to Church-men and not to the Magistrate Sict 18. His Fourth Answer is that Excommunication by Protestant Divines is not left to a Parochial Church I do not plead for that but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that miâ—d It is false That among us a Minister I mean with his Elders can only admonish not repel from the Lords Supper Why saith he may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie â—he Bishop as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive Church was exercised by a single person If the Dr's principle be true I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace than either of both What he saith of the Affrican Churches is answered above Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery by the declining of him is meant declining of them The Inconveniences that he allegeth by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance to a meeting of Pastors But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship it could hardly be so ill managed and made so ridiculous and contemptible as it is now in the Hands of Bishops or rather their Servants in England It is well known how solemn and terrible it is as practiced which is seldom in Presbyterian Churches and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments as he doth against Parochial Discipline to wit That there are no certain Rules to proceed by no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication no method of Tryal no security against false â—itnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals besides multitudes of other Inconveniences Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church without a Book of Canons such reflections on the Word of God are very unbecoming a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer But he might have considered if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible and if he have not his Will must be his Law why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery respective take the help of them He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile would prove more Tyranical than any Bishops Court. It may be so if managed by bad men but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates as the Bishops Courts for these we medle not with His fifth Answer I say nothing against Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline even supposing every one left to their own Consciences as to their
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
to themselves than thus to prelimit the people in that which so nearly concerns their Souls and to make that but an Accessory to wit the charge of Souls which should be the thing principally minded As now the Living is 2. The Magistrate or Patrons electing of a Minister may give him a Title to the Living but it can never make him the Pastor of such a people nor fix a Relation between him and them of Pastor and Flock For it is wholly Forreign to the Church as a Church it is a thing of Worldly concern and therefore can never found that Relation which is an Institution of Christ in his Church 3. We do not deny but when the people have chosen a Pastor and the Presbytery hath ordained him also the Magistrate may Imprison Banish or otherwise punish him so as he is consequentially restrained from the exercise of his Ministry among that people if the man be guilty of a civil crime of which the Magistrate is Judge but we deny that this Act doth dissolve the ministerial relation between that Pastor and People that cannot be done but by the Church 4. We do not so put Election into the hand of the multitude as either to exclude the Eldership that is among them or to exempt the people from their guidance in this The Eldership ought to regulate this Action yet so as it be not done without the consent of the generality 5. We are far from saying That the People by their Election doth make the Elected person a Minister that is done by Ordination which is in the Hands of the Presbytery 6. We do not say That this Elective power of the people is Arbitrary and independent they are to be bounded in it by the Rules of the Gospel that set forth the qualifications of Ministers and if they chuse contrary to these the Presbytery may reject the person and refuse to ordain him 7. We deny not but a part of a Church or the whole Church may forfeit this Right as to the present exercise of it by Ignorance Scandal Irreconcileable Contentions about the matter and such like in which case the power of Election devolveth into the hands of the Pastors of the Churches associated I mean the Presbytery Yet the peoples satisfaction should be endeavoured as much as is possible 8. It is the Right of the people which they ought not to be deprived of nor restrainâ—d from exercising ordinarily nor without singularly weighty cause to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 3. As to the Author of this Right in the people I maintain that it is neither from the Churches Determination nor from any grant from the Magistrate neither do I plead any Law of nature for it For by Divine Institution which is never contrary to the Law of Nature it was otherwise in the Jewish Church And though there be abundant reason for it it being the priviledge of Free Corporations and other Societies to chuse these that are to govern them and it being rational that a Corporation or person may chuse the Lawyer that they will intrust their Estates to and the Physician in whose hand they put their life so men should not be imposed upon to entrust the Conduct of their Souls to a person that they have not confidence in and whom they cannot chuse for that end Yet I say we do not lay the stress of the matter on Humane Reason but on Gospel Institution I affirm then that this is the Institution of Christ that it is the order that he hath appointed in the Gospel that people should have liberty to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 4. I am next to shew the grounds that we have to think so I shall prove this by shewing that it was the constant practice in the Church while the Apostles managed the Affairs of it that Church Officers were chosen by the suffrages of the people and I hope it will not be denied that such practice is declarative of Christ's Institution The first Argument for it is from Act. 14. 23. where though Ordination or appointing be expressed in our Translation yet the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ignifieth a chusing by Suffrages as the manner of the Grecians was by stretching out or lifting up the hand for that is the force of the Word to declare their Votes I deny not that this Word is sometimes used figuratively for potestative mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one person withot Suffrages as Act. 10. 14. yet it is very rare that the Word is so used And it is evident that the Word is most commonly usâ—d in this sence of all the Instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of this Word not one of them is to the contrary And it cannot be Instanced that ever this word is used for laying on of hands lifting up which is the force of the Word and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other Neither is it fit to seek for the Figurative signification of the Word when the proper signification may be admitted It is objected against this use of the Word here that they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them not to themselves that is the Apostles to the people ordained Elders Answ. It cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used indifferently for them or themselves and why it may not here be understood of themselves I see not so as that here is denoted the Action of appointing Elders for the people in which the people had a hand by Election as the Word here importeth and the Apostles had a hand by Ordination as can be proved by other Scriptures But if we should turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the sense may run plainly thus the Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the people upon their Electing them by Suffrages It is no strange thing in Scripture to see divers Actions expressed by the same Word where one is the consequent of the other as Is. 38. 17. Thou hast Loved my Soul out of the pit of corruption i.e. delivered it because thou loved it Also Act. 7. 9. The Patriarchs are said to sell Joseph to Egypt where both their Actions and the Actions of the Midianites who carried him to Egypt and there sold him are included in one Word Many Instances of this kind of Synthesis may be seen in Glâ—ss Philol. Sacr. lib. 3. tract 3. p. 229 It is also objected that these are said to Ordain who commended the people to the Lord that is the Apostles and that the Apostles are spoken of all along in the Nominative Case and not the people and therefore they must be the Actors meant by this word Answ. We deny not the Apostles to be Actors meant in this Word as the Patriarchs were in the Word Selling to Egypt Act. 7. 9. but we
Law of Justiniâ—n it is appointed that the Election be made by the Inhabitants of the City And I hope he will not impute Contradictions to Justinian's Laws He next objecteth Concil Laodic can 13. He doth not cite the Words and I meet only with the Title in these Words Deo quod non sit populis concedendum electionent facere eorum quam altaris Ministerio sit applicandi Ans. If this be meant of excluding the People wholly it is inconsistent with other Canons above cited and therefore not to be minded Therefore the meaning must rather be that the Election is not to be left to the Rable but they are to be assisted and directed in that Action by the Presbyters and better-sort of the People The Second Council of Nice is next cited but much amiss for it is Ordination not Election that is restrained to Bishops i. e. not to be done without them and Election is only taken out of the Hand of the Magistrate That Second Council citeth for Conformation of their Decree the Fourth Can. of Concil Nice 1. Where there is not a Word of Election by Bishops but only of Ordination He concludeth with Concil Constantinop 2. Can. 28. Carazanze hath it 22. Whereas the Greek Church owned but Fourteen of these Canons and the rest are look'd on as a Forgery Beside That Council was in the end of the Ninth Century when the Bishop of Rome had got very high and therefore less to be regarded Sect. 17. The Fourth thing the Dr. considereth is p. 323. That the Magistrate when Christian did interpose in this as he judged expedient Ans. We are not against the Magistrates interposing to repress Tumults assist the Oppressed oppose unpeaceable Persons c. But the question is Whether the Magistrate did take away the Election from the People and did interpose generally and when there was no special necessity for his interposing 2. We deny not but some Magâ—strates did interpose against Right and Reason but quo jure did they do so But let us hear his Instances the first is Constantine recommended to the Synod two Men to chuse either of them or whom they should judge fit without taking notice of the Interest of the People Ans. 1. This is far from taking away the Peoples right to deprive them of the present use of it on occasion of their dissension 2. How doth he prove that no notice was taken of the Peoples Interest That it is not mentioned is no proof it was so universally owned in those days that it might well be supposed without mention 3 Yea the Emperour in his Ep. to the People of Antioch doth mention it several times as Eusâ—bius relateth for he willeth them not to desire the Bishop of Antiâ—ch but to chuse one according to the Custom of the Church as our Saviour had dâ—rected them His next instance is in a Dissension at Constantinople about Paulus and Macedonius The Emperour Constantius put them both by and put in Eusebius of Nicomedia And after his Death when the Oxthodox party chused Paulus the Emperour put him out by force and put in Macedonius Ans. Such Instances will be little to the Credit of his cause for all this was done by a persecuting Emperour Constantius for râ—oting out the sound Faith and planting Arianism and was complained of by all the Orthodox as an Encroachment on the Liberties of the Church What followeth is far short of the point to wit the Emperours restoring Athenasius and several other Bishops who had been duly Elected and Ordained and by him thrust from their placâ—s Next Theodosius would have Nectarius made Bishop of Constantinople when many of the Bishops opposed it Ans. This maketh more against Episcopal Ordination than against Popular Election But that tâ—e peoples Election was not here Impedited is clear from the Synod at Ep. cited above Sect. 6. where the consent of the whole City is mentioned Next Chrysostom was appâ—inted by the Emperour to Constantinople without the People for Palladius doth not mention any consent but what was subservient to the Emperours determination Ans. Whether the câ—nsent was Antecedent or Subsequent if it was it destroyeth his design Beside both Socrates and Sozomen do expresly mâ—ntion the peoples Votes and Palladius whom the Dr. in this leaneth to doth not deny them Next he saith the Emperour would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen to succeed Sinsinnius therefore Nestorius was brought from Antioch Ans. It doth not follow that he was not chosâ—n by the People and the Emperour laying this restraint on the People is only if at all excâ—sable because he feared disturbance Such pretences have often given occasion to Oppression His last instance is Proctus was made Bishop by the Emperours order before the Burial of his Successor Ans. It is not proved that the People did not chuse him yea the People had chosen him before Maximanus his predecessor got the place and he being now dead he might enter in without the Formality of a new choice Let the Reader now judge whether any Orthodox Emperour did ever disown this priviledge of the People either by declaring that the power was not in them but in himself or by interposing ordinarily or without hazard of the Civil Peace in the Elections of the Pastors of the Church wherefore the Dr. in all this hath said nothing that can conclude against this power of the people Sect. 18. His fifth Consideration p. 325. is That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing thâ—n before I suppose by the alteration of the Government of Christendom the reverend Author meaneth the breaking of the Roman Empire and the setting up of many Kingdoms out of it which fell out in the latter and very corrupt times of the Church Himself dateth it from the endowment of Churches by the liberality of the Northern Princes Against this I argue 1. This practice being so long after the Churches purity began to decay and when Christian Religion was almost destroy'd by the encrease of Apostacies and when Princes and Prelates had as it were divided the spoiles of the Church between them and robbed the People both of their Rights and many of the Ordinances of God as to the purity of them it hath no weight to conclude against the Peoples right of Election which they had from Christ and enjoyed in the purer Ages of the Church for many Centuries of years If this reasoning have any force it will make as much for the Mass Imagiâ—s denying the Cup in the Lords Supper to the People and many such things which I hope the Dr. will not argue for tho' he unwarily saâ—th more for them than wâ—â—ld have been expected 2. He acknowledgeth p. 325. That this was obtained by Princes by degrees and indeed it was very late before it became common and the Power was wholly wrested out of the peoples Hands He confesseth that this way was not
always observed in the days of Cloâ—harius in France which of them he meaâ—eâ—h I know not there were three of that Name the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after now if the Infancy of this usage was so late and it grew by degrees the adult State of it must be as indeed it is a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts. Sect. 19. 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State there was either greater reason than before or any reason for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church as to take it out of the peoples Hand That there was no greater reason then before I prove both because he cannot shew us such reason and also because before this there were Tumults and Confusions which might require the Magistrates interposition and also because the Christian Emperours had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms No difference in this can be assigned either from any grant of Christ to the one more then to the other nor from sound reason That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason is none at all to wit The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally For 1. Did not the Emperours so too Coâ—stantin's liberality was exceâ—ding great which occasioned that saying hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Priviledges from them that Christ had granted them to more than Jacobs Pottages was for Esâ—us's Birth-right It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine and only fit for Simon Magus that the Liberality of Princes or others to the Church can entitle them to be Masters of her priviledges As there is no more reason now then before so there neither was nor is any reason at all why Magistraâ—es should mâ—dle with the Election of Church Officers because it is the peoples right by Christ's Institution and hath been owned by the Church and the Magistrate for many Ages as hath been shewed above Sect. 20. The Dr. saith that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used these priviledges in Election of Church-men of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people but to be enlarged This he insisteth much upon afâ—erward alledging that the people of England by their representatives in Parliament have given away their power of Elecâ—ion and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates Bishops and other Patrons A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right it was Christ's Legacy to them and not alienable by them It doth concern their Souls not their temporal Estates and such concerns are not at Mens disposal 2. I deny that this was done people never gave away this Right it was partly by violence and partly by Fraud wrested out of their Hands what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away wherein the People are represented is a mistake for the people are represented in Parliament as they are Members of the Body Politick and they instrust all their worldly Interests and Lives and Estates to them whom they chuse and they may dispose of these by making Laws to secure them and also to take them away when the publick good doth so require but they are not there represented as they are Members of the Church neither do they or can they entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls or the Church Rights and Priviledges These Christ hath made Laws about and no Man can make Laws about them all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial not Magisterial as Acts of Parliament are it is to declare Christ's Laws and to put them in Execution and Christ hath not entrusted Kings nor Parliaments with these Affairs but only his Ministers and the people can entrust no other with them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's on which all of it is built is his confounding of Church and State with Erastus which is to mingle Heaven and Earth Sect. 21. He saith The Princes obtained by degrees not only the Conâ—irmation of the Election bâ—t the Liberty of Nomination with a shadow of Election by the Clâ—rgy and others of the Court as appears by the formula of Marculphus Answ. Here is plain dealing both to let us see what fraâ—dulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right by leaving a Shadow of Election when the substance was taken away and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Priviledge that they behoved by such Policies to wind themselves into And further that it is so grosly evil that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church but must thus hide the shame of this practice if they have a good Title why leave they a shadow of Election If not why do they assume the substance of it He ciâ—eth on the Margin in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings several Acts of Couâ—cils as Concil Aurelian An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause for Can. 3. which I suppose is that he aimeth at dâ—th barely name the King whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth so far as the peace of the State is concerned in tâ—em but expresly requireth the Election of the Clergy and People and again their consent and moreover maketh this Election a clero plebe to be as it is written in the Antient Canons Concil Aurelan 2. Can. 7. doth also expresly mention popular Eâ—ection and Concil Aurelâ—an 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent And Concil Aurelian 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordâ—ined in his Church to which he was Elected decreto that was the ordinary Term for the Writing wherein the peoples Election was conâ—ained And in all these Canons there is not one word of the Magistrate except in the first as abovesaid His Concil Tarracoâ— I cannot find Concil Tolet. 12. that he citeth was in the end of the seventh Century when Corruptions were come to a great height and it was but provincial it saith indeed quoscunque pâ—testas regia â—lâ—gerit but the peoples Election is not exluded tho not mentioned and there is an express salvo it is the 6th Can. for the liberty of the Provinces which cannot well be understood but of the priviledge of the people of the Province Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests between the Papal and Regal power and how the latter prevailed in England and citeth several Acts of Parliament as of Edward 6th and others Aâ—sw What doth all this prove If two contend about a Third Persons Estate and the one prevail against the other doâ—h that give him a Title We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about and
Ordinances of God. 3. Any variation of their opinion about their Washings from our opinion about our Ceremonies that can be observed ariseth from the difference that is between their Church and Ordinances and ours and so cannot make their imposition unlawful if ours be lawful for God had appointed Washings for removing of Ceremonial uncleanness which affected both Soul and Body to wit at the touching of the Dead or any unclean thing and all 〈◊〉 Jews knew that antecedently to the Command no uncleannesâ—â—ould be contracted by these Touches nor removed by these Washings The Rabbies in the Apostate State of that Church added such like observations to Gods out of a desire of more ample strictness and that their purity might be more conspicuous knowing well that before the Command these things were in the same state that the other things were in before God's Command Just so doth our Church God hath instituted some Ceremonies for his own Honour and Edification of his People so as we all know that antecedently to his command they were indifferent things as Water Bread and Wine and the Church not content with these add some other Ceremonies for further honouring of God to wit making his Worship more decent and further edification stirring up the dull minds of men yet protesting that antecedently to their command these things are indifferent Is not here an exact parallel if it be said that the Rabbies thought the things that they enjoyned to be comprehended under God's commanded Worship before they enjoyned them this is denyed and the contrary is evident from Christ's Reasoning with them he all along maketh a distinction between God's Command and their Tradition which they might easily have objected against if they had pretended a Command of God for the things that they by Tradition imposed Sect. 10. In order to the proving his Opinion in this matter he saith p. 339. that the Reason of Christ's opposing the Pharisees was not because a thing in it self unnecessary was determined by their Superiors but because of the superstitious opinion that the Pharisees had about these Washings Here is a wrong state of the Question hinted we never quarrelled with superiours for determining a thing in it self unnecessary we know they may determine this Time and that Place of Worship and yet neither of these in it self is necessary seeing another time or place may do as well But the Question is whether Superiors may determine a thing that is not at all needful to be determined as the Habit Gesture c. and appropriate this their determination to Religious Worship that so it shall be done in Worship though it be not so done in other Actions and this without warrant from the Lord whom we Worship His Proofs that the Pharisees were condemned only because of their superstitious opinion and if this only be not understood by the Dr. he speaketh not to the point in hand are two From the force of our Saviour's Reasoning Thus then he argueâ—â— p. 340. He proveth that they set up their Tradition above the Law of God as in the Vow Corban The force of which Argument extendeth to all that they observed because of the Tradition of their Ancestors therefore they thought these things pleasing to God and that mens Consciences were strictly obliged to observe them This is the sum of the Drs. Argument To which the Answer is obvious to wit that this doth not at all prove that the Pharisees thought these things obliging antecedently to their Tradition which is the only thing in Question Christ's Reasoning proveth no more but that they had an undue esteem of their own Authority and did upon the matter equal it with if not prefer it to that of God by laying such stress on things that stood meerly on their Authority but he doth not so much as hint that they thought these things antecedently obligeing or that the omitting of them would have defiled the Conscience though there had been no such Tradition Is not our Case parallel to theirs in this VVe say the Ceremonies oblige not there is no Sin in not observing them nor Indecency in not using them antecedently to the Law so did the Pharisees of their Washings and if they were Zealous for their Washings are not ye so to as great a degree for your Ceremonies when imposed what disobedience ungovernableness contempt of the Worship of God and indecency in it are we charged with and we are prosecuted with more rigour for neglect of these than others are for the highest Immoralities Is not this to prefer your Tradition to God's Law Do not ye make void the Law of God neglecting Love studying Unity Mercy c. for these your Traditions Sect. 11. But saith the Dr. The Pharisees thought a mans Conscience defiled if he did not observe the Traditions as appears by Christ's subsequent Discourse shewing what it is that defileth a man and what not A. This they thought only because they had put these things in that state by their Tradition but never taught that these things would have defiled the man if there had been no such Tradition and do not our Brethren think that omitting the Ceremonies now injoyned defileth a man Do they not think the Non-conformists have need of Repentance and Pardon for their Non-conformity If they think not so why do they so blame and prosecute them The Dr. concludeth p. 341. That the main thing in question was whether this Ceremony of washing hands could be omitted without defileing the Conscience otherwise saith he our Saviour's Conclusion doth not reach the Question This is a great Mistake though it were no hazard to our Cause to grant it for this Question was but consequential to another to wit Whether the Church had power to institute Ceremonies such as Christ had not instituted and then charge People with sin and not keeping a good Conscience for not observing them This was the main Question as appeareth by his reproving them for making such Traditions and for bringing the Commandments of men into God's Worship Our Saviours Conclusion that he speaketh of to wit his discourse about what defileth a man is not the thing he first intended to prove to wit by his reproving them for their Traditions for the Conclusion of that Argument is That men ought not to teach for Doctrines the Commanâ—ments of men i. e. institute in Worship what Christ hath not instituted But this discourse about what defileth a man is a Consequence drawn from that Conclusion to wit That things so forbidden may be forborn without sin and that it is transgressing of God's Command not of mans that defileth the Conscience wherefore there is no ground for what the Dr. saith that Christ condemned them not meerly with respect to the Command of Superiours understand a Command of Superiours bringing into the Worship of God what was not instituted by God otherwise it reacheth not our Question for condemning the Traditions of men is a condemning meerly with respect to
the Command of Superiors in that sense Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews p. 342. for this he sheweth That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists to prove That they equalled their Traditions with the Commands of God and hâ—nce inferreth that this was not look't â—n as an indifferent Ceremony but as a thing whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth to wit the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church not before so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies Wherefore Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse by this one saying as the Dr. alleadgeth I well know what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them But all this Sanctity they founded not only natural or antecedent goodness of the things observed but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them He telleth us that they said Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom deserveth not only Excommunication but Death too and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies except that it is not yet made death by the Law though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account hath brought them to their death I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of Eâ—gland that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings He admireth p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews and required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are A. He need not admire for none of us say so of that Washing when imposed and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition as our Ceremonies are That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are a Reason of the difference is already given to wit That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies for taking away Uncleanness Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution for honouring Him and edifying of Souls Sect. 13. He proceedeth Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth by considering the Popish Ceremonies and their opinion of washing away Sin and Justification by them And for this he citeth many Authors all which pains might have been spared For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abouâ— the Jews opinion of their Washings and needeth no other Answer All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies is consequent to and dependent on their being injoyned by the Church None of them say that they have such Efficacy in themselves and that they attribute taking away of sin to them ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works which the Church of England doth not maintain The Church of England maketh them good Works but denieth their Merit because she denieth that even to the Works that God hath commanded The Papists do but make them good Works also and that they think them meritorious is from this their opinion that all good Works are such and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves without Institution They ascribe spiritual Effects to them saith he so do you to your Ceremonies as stirring up of dull Minds engaging the Soul to God c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this without a Divine Institution that it has to drive away Devils as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity by the Doctor on this ground He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies with these of Rome but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites than that hath to make them Causes of Grace He telleth us pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise than as purged from Popish Superstition and for this citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer and Can. 30. Answer Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned if they may be their own Judges it is Amicum Testimonium I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them but to purge out all is impossible The things themselves as stated in the Worship of God without His Institution being such Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause by this Discourse our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies viz. That these things being unnecessary in themselves that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition ought not to be brought into God's Worship by them who abhor that way nor indeed can they without much scandal But of this and other Arguments I have treated elsewhere Sect. 14. His second way how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship he hath pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians And this he purgeth the Church of England from What is already said doth abundantly refute this for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts tho bad ones of Worship without this and the former too And indeed if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship none of the Popish Ceremonies were such for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God as he pleaseth more than the English Convocation will And I believe there was never Church in the world that held That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned unalterable and so as to bind all Christians But still the Doctor as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies and their Practice in reference to them If they be alterable why will ye rather ruine your Brethren hazard Souls rend the Church than alter them If they bind not our Consciences why do ye charge us with Sin for refusing them If they bind not all men why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon by many of your Church Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship and answereth them It is here to be observed that the Arguments that he mentioneth are but some of many that we use against the Ceremonies And these not they that are most directly against them Mr. A. Argueth thus An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of and Subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship The Dr. Answereth An outward visible Sign representing between men the duty or engagement of another is no
we read judge and hear only on one side think it a temptation to examin cry out we are satisfied already are not willing to be informed nor glad of light fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples c. If we be such men why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such and the People too to cry out away with such fellows from the Earth it is not fit they should live He asketh where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples If I should speak in his dialect I should answer in the arguments by us produced which he and all his party are not able to answer nor have ever answered but I had rather-dispute than scold He saith we may see light if we will We say we would see it if we could and think we could see it if it were to be seen He telleth us how easy this dispute is We assent and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth He chargeth us with willful mistake a mistake we deny and make the contrary of it appear but if it be a mistake that it is willful we also deny and though we cannot in this satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts who will one day judge us and our rash judgers Sect. 6. He contesteth page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook there is no need of insisting on such debates Brethren should study to understand one another and construe every thing to the best But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse pag. 72 73 74. which he hath but lightly or hardly at all touched He proceedeth pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists who objecteth that these who cannot conquer their scruples as to Communion with our Church must either return to the state of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers The Dr's Answer is that this is new Doctrine the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at Reply I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans that did both scruple and act as we do but I deny not that some did join with the Church but then their scruples and ours do differ They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient yet might be used we think them unlawful and not to be used There was also another difference they met with some indulgence and were suffered to Worship God with the Church and forbear the things that they scrupled We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these and therefore whatever they did we are under this unpleasing choice either to sin against God and our Consciences or to set up Separate Meetings or to return to the state of Paganism i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God. Sect. 7. It is objected that we scruple joining in the Sacraments and living under some of the Ministers He answereth that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation neither do I insist on it as I have before declared save where they Preach false Doctrine or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin And this scruple hath been often heard of It is too vulgar a way of reasoning it is a hard case if People must fly into separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be Pray who ever said so But the Dr. would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joining with others their separation be lawful This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge that scrupling can never make Separation lawful it is good ground for these scruples that must do that Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations might have been spared as wholly impertinent O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England he asketh what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present Separation Ans. There is in it that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising or other unlawful terms of Communion and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these He telleth us page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their scruples It is true neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account but withal he might have added that few setled Churches except that of Rome and that of England do tempt or rather force men to scruple and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion which they know many count unlawful What he saith ibid. for Papists Anabaptists and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating doth no way come up to our case Neither are their scruples built on good grounds nor are the things that they scruple known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation by shewing what scruples are to be allowed and what not Hath this never been done by Non-conformists Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences If these were attended to a stop might soon be put to Separation but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand and the Church will impose without cause on the other there is no putting a stop to Separations till the Lord cure our Distempers Rigour and Persecution if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party is one way to put a stop to Separation but it is none of Gods way and as it never had his approbation so it seldom hath had success Sect. 8. The Learned Author Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject to wit the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation and therefore might wave this whole debate But I think it is an abuse and therefore shall say a little on this Subject Here we have not any institution to guide us there being nothing in Scripture that I know of about Spoâ—sion for the party Baptized And therefore as on the one hand what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary should not be withstood so on the other what is beyond that should not be practised and far
less imposed All the question is about the use of Sponsers in the Baptism of Infants for the adult are to undertake for themselves Some make the use of God-fathers to be witnesses of the Childs-Baptism That is very needless for the whole Church are witnesses of that The true use of them is to represent the Child as a party covenanting with God in this Solemn Sealing of the Covenant of Grace between God and the Infant and consequential to this to undertake the instruction and education of the Child in the Christian Religion and endeavouring to engage him to a personal owning of the Covenant The original of other Sponsors beside the Parents was in the Primitive Church many young ones either born of Heathen-Parents or Orphans of Christian-Parents falling into the Tuition of Heathen-Relations in reference to their worldly concerns were in hazard by that means to be bred in Heathenism Wherefore it was judged needful that some faithful and intelligent Christian should undertake for their Religious Education This usage which reason had first brought in ostentation did afterward enlarge by multiplying God-fathers and God-mothers and after that Superstition did perverâ— it by excluding the Parents and putting strangers in their room till at last in Popery it was quite depraved by making a spiritual kindred to result from this action Wherefore we do not deny the use of Sponsors but think the Parents the most proper Sponsors both on account of their opportunity obligation and natural inclination to do the office of a Sponsor for the Child which may rationally be thought to be more in them than in a stranger and we think it a gross abuse to admit of other Sponsors except in the want of Parents or their Inhability I think also considering things as they are not barely in the notions that men have of things that they will defend this practice is fallen into such abuse that even that should make it be laid aside for it is manifest and most common that God-fathers and God-mothers are chosen most unqualified for and most unconcerned in that which they make a solemn promise to God to perform which is a horrid mocking of Him and his Ordinances Are not Boys and Girls chosen or Debauched and Ignorant Persons or Strangers that may be shall never see the Child again nor mind it except it be to send it a new Coat Sect. 9. The Dr. telleth us of Mr. Cartwright yea and all Protestant Churches approving of this But will he say that they are for Excluding the Parents which is the very thing that we controvert For as the Dr. confesseth Can. 29. Ordaineth That Parents need not be Present and that they shall not be admitted to Answer that is they must not undertake for the instruction and education of their own Child But saith he The Parents are to provide such as are Fit. I desire to know what Warrant is for this even from sound reason Who can be so Fit by his opportunity and care as the Parent And if he be wholly unfit as to understanding and respect to true Religion we are not against his having a Deputy in that Case that it is done with the Parents consent is better so than otherwise but that the Parent can transfer his right to another is without all reason unless the Person to whom such a Translation is made do really take the education of the Child which though by a private compact between the Parent and Sponsor might be done yet what shadow of reason can be for a Canon compelling every Parent to do it It is saith he but like an occasion of absence to wit of the Parent in which case all allow of a Sponsor Ans. It is no way like it for the one hath necessity to warrant it the other hath nothing but mens will or superstitious conceit Is it alike for the State to make a Law that neighbours should feed and cloath the Orphans of poor Parents and to make a Law that they shall feed and cloath the Children of their rich Neighbours who are alive The case is just so here It is an injury to a man to have his Child taken from him without a cause and given to another to be educated so it is to be obliged yea forced to transfer upon another all that right he hath to represent his own child and to engage for his education He saith it is not the Churches intention to supersede the obligation of the Parent but to superinduce a further obligation upon other Persons Had the Parent been permitted to undertake for the Child jointly with the Sponsors there had been some colour for this assertion but that being expresly denied by the Canon it is evident that the Church doth what she can to make the Parent think that no obligation at all lyeth on him I meddle not with his debate against Mr. B. about Mr. B's Argument against Sponsors from the Childs having right to Baptism only from the Parents many learned men differ from Mr. B. in that and I shall not digress to dispute it Sect. 10. The Dr. pag. 386. saith he findeth nothing particularly objected against Kneeling at the Communion that deserveth consideration which he hath not answered in another place to wit Conferences First Part which Book I have not seen wherefore I shall in a few words lay down our Ground of Scrupling that Practice and so leave it We do not scruple Kneeling at Prayer which is joyned with receiving of that Sacrament nor do we deny that all possible reverence should be used in going about that Holy Ordinance but we think the expression of that Reverence should be of Gods appointing in his Word or grounded on Nature or civil Custom and not instituted by mans Will. 1. Then we scruple it because it is an uncommanded Act of Worship that it is Worship I think will not be denyed Kneeling in Prayer cannot be denyed to be an Act of external Worship no more than this That it is uncommanded we must believe till they shew us a Command for it They alledge that Kneeling being unquestionable a fit gesture to express Humility and Adoration it cannot be unfit but needful in this Case where both are required To this I reply Humility is not fitly expressed by Kneeling though Adoration be and therefore we think Kneeling in the Act of Receiving to be no fit gesture because Adoreing however needful it be in the complex Action of Communicating to wit before and after Receiving the Elements it is not the Souls work in that Act Believing or Covenanting with God is the proper Exercise of the Soul in that Act which is a solemn sealing of the Covenant and this Covenanting is very unfitly expressed by Kneeling He that is about solemn Prayer or Adoration which might be well expressed by Kneeling in the Act of receiving that Sacrament doth little know or consider the nature and use of it whence I form our Argument thus that Religious Gesture which is neither
upon Episcopacy which we do not and he no doubt doth it upon Misinformation But it is observable that this good man whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side doth as much blame the Church as us whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies that occasion Separation which he insisteth much on as the way to peace A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with is That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters a little after His Majesties Restauration nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians the contrary of which and their great Condescendency for Peace is known to all England and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity is the Book called A Petition for Peace containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed while the Prelatical Party would not part with yea nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony or mode of their Service Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude who walketh by the same Spirit and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague Monsieur de l' Angle He speaketh of Episcopacy as tollerable that one may with a good Conscience live under it This is not our Question but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause He telleth us they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops so do we He doth highly commend Love and Concord And we think it cannot be overvalued where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages both by Episcopacy and Parity and of disadvantages by both when managed by bad men Nothing of which do we contradict He complains of Extreams on both sides we do the same We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate as they should be After a proof of Independency he comes to speak of Presbyterians with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry this we refuse not He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart but stateth it on this ground page 445. as if we did Separate because the publick assembles are held under Episcopal Government and that we think our presence there were an approving of it which is wide from our case but no doubt is according to his information for which we â—hank our Episcopal Brethren and commend their ingenuity To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them which is far from our thoughts These Principles he doth most solidly refute He saith page 447. that he cannot believe that any of â—us Presbyterians look on their Episcopal Discipline or Ceremonies as blots and capital errours that hinder a man from Salvation And doth in this truly judge for we have always disowned such sentiments we judge them sinful evils which we dare not own but have much charity to some who own them He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation and when the dispute is about Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block and nothing in comparison of communion they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ better than themselves O that this advice were followed how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude or his Colleague touched our controversy Alas good Men they are abused by mis-representations Their Letters give just ground to think that if they were made Umpires between the two parties Prelatical and Presbyterian and heard the true state of our debate and true matters of fact they would be of the same mind with us And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side or at least to say nothing against them may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary Monsieur l' Arrogie who having writ a Book wherein he sheweth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome which all know to be Presbyterian with that of the Primitive Church And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle touching the Letters of Ignatius and the Apostolical Constitutions against Mr. Pearson and Beverige and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him at the request of some that favoured â—piscopacy he did not finish his answer These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants Ministers and others who do not Conform to the Church of England the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great Gosple Duty of charity At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies nor English Liturgy Since I wrote this I have met with another instance of Episcopal ingeâ—uity for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart dated Nov. 2d 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three poâ—itions whereof the third is a gross calumny and excellently disproved by Bochart and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him the position is Reges posse vi armis a subditis cogi in ordinem si se praebeant immorigeros de soliis deturbare in carcerem câ—njici siâ—â—i in jus carnificem deniqne capite plecti and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter as it is Printed after his Phaleg and Canaan from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford 1681. FINIS
no moment without it we should either join with men in Sin or live without the Ordinances of God. Let me here make use of the Testimony of a worthy Person one whom the Dr. afterward bringeth against us and therefore in reason cannot refuse his Suffrage tho' we are far from hanging our Cause on mens Opinions as the Dr. doth that is the learned Monsieur Claude in his excellent Book called the Historical Defence of the Reformation the design of which is to shew that every man hath a right to believe the truth and to dissent from Errour and to profefs this and to reform Religion by setting up Religious Assembles for the true Worship of God when they cannot have Truth nor right Worship in that which goeth under the name of the Church He saith Part 2. p. 169. As it is ridiculous to demand of a man in a civil Society what personal Call he had to live to labour to avoid that which would be hurtful to his Life and to have a care of his own Preservation so it is also an Absurdity to demand of our Fathers what Call they had to believe aright in God and to worship him purely and to remove far from them all that which they believed to be contrary to a spiritual life and their own Salvation And much more to this purpose He objecteth p. 170. Is not this to rend the Church by Divisions and answereth No for the Vnity of the Church lieth not in Errour or false Worship it is love to the Church to endeavour her cure by shewing a good example And Part 4. p. 14 15. When it is objected That the Protestants could not separate because their Pastours were against it he answereth That many Pastors went along with them and if that had not been they might have chosen Pastors all which he discourseth at length We have an Example of setting up God's Ordinances without yea against the Laws of men in the Word It is clear from Ezr. 5. with ch 4. 21. that the Temple was built against Law And it is clear from Hog 1. 2. that it was the Peoples Sin that they neglected it so long even when Law was against them and that they ought to have done it before Haggai and Zechariah put them on it Sect. 23. Next the Dr. p. 82. bringeth in some Non-conformists condemning Ministers Preaching after they were silenced It is evident to any that readeth p. 82 83. that it is silencing by the Church that is there spoken of but our restraint is by the Magistrate only who doth not pretend to give nor to take away Pastoral power Pag. 86. he bringeth Mr. Bradshaw reasoning against Ministers preaching against the will of the Magistrate but in the First part of Mr. Bradshaw's Discourse it is evident that he speaketh only against publick Preaching in such a place in defiance of the Magistrate and running on the Sword 's point or opposing Sword to Sword which we are far from either practising or approving I confess p. 87. he is for the Ministers living privately yet saith expresly that he is to labour mean while privately upon particular occasions offered why they may not be also sought I know not to strengthen and confirm in the ways of God those people that are deprived of his publick Labour If this be not an allowance of his private preaching I understand it not But. Mr. Bradshaw will have the People to submit to the Ministry of another in publick with the liking of the Magistrate tho' he would have them to affect and love the former as their Pastor How congruous this Advice is I shall not enquire not laying so much stress on mens thoughts of things as to be turned out of our way by them But Mr. Bradshaw seemeth to speak of a Case wherein the Magistrate is offended with a Minister on some personal account and another is set over the People with whom they may as lawfully join as with the former but that doth not come near to our Case in which Ministers are restrained because of a Scruple common to them and the People that join with them to wit using the Ceremonies Would he have the People over the belly of Scripture-light to join with the new Incumbent in Ceremonies and not rather enjoy the Ordinances in purity tho' in private from their own faithful Pastor I cannot see how that can be gathered from his words but if it was his Opinion we crave leave to differ from him Beside Mr. Bradshaw did never advise that some Thousands of Ministers being all laid aside at once should deprive the Church of their more private Labours when they were forcibly restrained in publick The Non-conformists in former times were not in our Circumstances Sect. 24. The Dr. is now come to his Triarij his last Argument to prove what was the general Sence of the Non-conformists in this It is Mr. Sprint's Argument for Conformity rather than to be deprived to wit That a lesser Duty should cede to a greater He supposeth Conformity and Preaching to be a greater Duty than abstaining from the Ceremonies And he confirmeth this it seemeth by the Apostles who he saith submitted to the Jewish Ceremonies rather than lose the Liberty of the Ministry The Dr. I see hath not kept his best Wine till the end of the Feast this is one of the meanest of his Allegations for the Non-conformists had an easie Answer to this Argument that here a Sin and forbearing a Duty are brought in competition which maketh an easie choice to wit using unlawful Ceremonies with not preaching in publick What he saith of the Apostles using the Jewish Ceremonies is quite out of our way for these Ceremonies for a time were indifferent as all acknowledge buâ— that ever any of the Apostles used them after the full promulgating of the Gospel and the Destruction of the Temple when they became not only mortuae but mortiferae as the Schools speak we utterly deny But even what he maketh the Non-conformists answer concerning the greater usefulness and necessity of the preaching of the Apostles than of their preaching maketh nothing for his Design Nor doth it prove that they did not think that the Apostle's Wo be unto me if I preach not the Gospel did reach to their Case for it can import no more but that if such a great necessity might warrant some things otherwise not warrantable as the abstaining from things strangled and Blood was warranted yea made necessary by a present necessity their publick Preaching was not of that moment and it was only their publick Preaching that was hindred by their Non-conformity And thus I have got through the Thicket of his Historical Collâ—ctions and proceed to the Rational Part of his Discourse which I hope shall prove less tedious PART II. IN the Second Part of his Book the Learned Dr. enquireth into the nature of the Separation I wish he had taken as much pains to find out the true Cause of it and
this is manifestly the ordinary strain of his preaching we say in that Case people may withdraw from a man for here the Ordinance of Preaching is wholly inverted and turned against that which it was appointed to promote There is as good ground in this case to desert a Minister as there is in a besieged Garrison for the Souldiers to desert their Commander when he turneth the Guns that are on the Walls from the Enemy upon the Town The Dr. rejecteth this as before by tart Reflection on Mr. B. which whatever it may be ad hominem is nothing ad rem If Mr B. hath sharply reproved some for Censoriousness Pride Divisions c. and these will count this opposing of Godliness Doth this peevish mistake of theirs prove that there can be no such thing really committed by a Minister or if it be that it should not be resented by the Hearers Or if Mr. B. sometimes speak at this rate is this his ordinary Doctrine or when men make Railing their ordinary Doctrine Should people sit and hear that as God's Ordinance for their Souls edification The Fourth Quality That Ministers be not of a scandalous Life Of this the Dr. saith nothing and I shall say little more than is already said We do not hold That personal faults in a Minister where the Ordinances are incorrupted is a sufficient ground of Separation from him But it cannot but be a sad Grievance and make people wait on the Ministry of such a person with less comfort and satisfaction and may warrant people that regard the advantage of their Souls to lay hold on the first opportunity that they can get to live under a Ministry that is more like to be blessed Sect. 13. He chargeth the Non-conformists without exception Sect. 10. with insinuating that the whole body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such faults as the people may lawfully separate A most false Assertion and unjust Charge Not one Non-conformist that ever I read or met with hath said or written this or words to this effect but they do generally disclaim it But the Dr. undertaketh to prove it by some particulars 1. They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing and then tell the people over and over again That it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests especially where the Scandal is so notorious I am astonished to read this from the Pen of one whom I am loath to have an harsh thought against We do indeed think Conformity a Sin and being open it cannot but be a Scandal and we think that in some it arising from a regardlesness of knowing what is right becometh yet more scandalous but none of us ever thought that a mistake of this nature in men otherwise sober and conscientious was a very scandalous thing or that it was such a scandal as by it self could warrant Separation But let the Dr. tell us of any one of our way that ever held this general Thesis That it is no Sin to separate from scandalous Priests when the Scandal is notorious I am sure Mr. B. whom he only citeth on this occasion teacheth the contrary oftner than once particularly Christ. Direct p. 718. and his looking on Conformity as Sin and an aggravated Sin and the pressing of it as that Sin which they charge us with to wit Schismaticalness do no way prove what the Dr. asserteth When Mr. B. saith p. 133. Can you wonder if the people chuse more faithful Pastors It doth not make the Clergy's Conformity the true Reason nor the main Reason neither of Separation yea nor doth it import an Approbation of Separation tho' he doth elsewhere shew his Approbation of it but only sheweth how you tempt the people to it Sect. 14. Another Argument to prove his charge is Sect. 11. That we count most of the present Ministers of the Church of England Vsurpers and that from such we may lawfully separate Ans. We deny both parts of his Assertion whatever Usurpation some of them may be guilty of We know most of them have the tacite at least consent of the people a post facto and therefore however they might be guilty of intrusion in their entry in their continuing in their places they are no Usurpers Neither do we own it to be lawful to separate from every Minister that is an Usurper meerly on the account of his Usurpation To clear this I shall lay down our opinion about this in these few Assertions 1. The regular way of entring into the Ministry is by the Election or Call of the People over whom he is to have charge and the potestative Mission or Ordination of the Pastors of the Church This will fall in afterward to be debated 2. It is consequential to this That whoever do not enter this way into the Ministry are in some degree or other Intruders into that Work. 3. Though the express Call of the people and their free consent be needful to the more orderly Entrance of a Minister among them yet if they implicitely shew their consent and they being prelimitted by the Presentation of a Patron or Commands of the Magistrate if they consent that is enough to the substance of a Call and maketh the Minister that so entereth no Usurper The reason is because he is only to consider the Will and Consent sufficiently declared not the motives nor considerations that influence their will. Indeed if the man had any hand by undue means to influence them to consent against their Duty and right Reason he is in so far guilty before God But this doth not nullifie his Call which consisteth in the peoples consent 4. There are three sorts of Usurpers of the Ministerial Office or Work. 1. Such as fall upon that Work without a Call from a people or Ordination by Ministers 2. Such as do it upon a peoples Call but have no Ordination or potestative Mission by those in Authority the Church for that end 3. Such as have Ordination but take the Charge of a particular Flock wholly without consent or against their will. The two former sorts usurp the Office the third usurpeth that particular Charge that he hath no right to 5. The Presentation of a Patron to the Living the Civil Laws of men injoining or owning a mans entrance into a place due Ordination Institution and Induction and what else men please to devise can never make him the Pastor of such a particular people without their consent some way had but without it he is still an Usurper This doth follow from the peoples right of chusing their Pastors which is to be afterward discoursed 6. It is lawful to Separate from usurping Ministers of the first and second sort because they are no Ministers they have only the name of Ministers like those that called themselves Apostles and were not Rev. 2. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny this 7. When a Minister is obtruded on a People against their will and so is an Usurper of