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
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
in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
Gifts and do not cross Christ's Institution whatever inconvenience may be in them 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them Nature maketh it necessary that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency whether for one meeting for a Month or Year or during his life and therefore the Church may determine in that Yet we must add That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or making a moderator constant having been of old and late the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation we think it highly inconvenient 4. Neither do we deny that among Ministers the wiser graver and men of more Holiness and Experience should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren yea we deny not but some of Opinion for parity of Power have overborn their Brethren through their loftiness of Spirit an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian it is not mens Corruptions but their Principles that our debate is about 5. We deny not but the Name Bishop that in the Apostles times was common to all Eldeâ—s of the Church began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator who also was called Primus Presbyter and that this priority for as small as it was was too much affected and taken notice of even in the Apostles times Diotrephes who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter had a great mind to that dignity but this was when â—ew of the Apostles were now alive It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places and was sâ—atched at in other places while yet the ancient Order of Parity among the Pastors of the Church was in most places retained 7. Though we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church for the first Three Hundred Years or that it was general in the fourth Century and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government yet it is not mens Authority but divine Institution that we are determiend by and lay the stress of our Cause upon and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie but the Scripture Sect. 3. It might have been expected that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame as he doth in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates should have proved the Divine Institution or at least the lawfulness of that Office and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier though not so perswasive a way to wit to refute Mr. B's Assertions about Episcopacy and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question as I hope shall appear in our Progress And I have often observed that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear and sure procedure in this Controversie if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert and the Foundation on which they build it as to the thing some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them that they make it little or no more but a Presidency So the learned and Pious Vsher who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party Grotius also goeth this way de Imper. sum potest circa sacra p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church who are to be their Counsel Our Author Iren. p. 309. saith that both Jerom and Ignatius agree that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters nor being liable to their censures So the generality of our High Church-men Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute or delegate to none but Christ some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments in his own Person and that this he should be constantly exercised in Others that his Work is to rule and that he need not trouble himself with other Work unless he please Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only but of Government and Discipline to others yea to Lay-men that by them he may Excommunicate and judge Ministers and People Others think that he hath no power to do so so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government others allow it Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church and that really and not seemingly only as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter who yet are not the Church of whom they must proceed to a Mock election others think those that come in this way to be none of Christs Bishops Some own Diocesan Bishops who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy as it is stated among us in Metropolitans Primates Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons Chancellors c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter others deny this many School men are on both sides it was debated at the Council of Trent In all these things I observe very much Confusion and want of a distinct Idea of that Office that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren Sect. 5. There is as little agreement or distinctness among them about the Foundation on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth Some of them are for iâ—s divine Right as being instituted by Christ But this Plea they find so hard to be managed and to have so ill success and to be so little the way to preferment as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate that most have laid it aside others that it is of Apostolick institution being not commanded by Christ but prudently setled by the Apostles Others that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church afâ—er the decease of all the
plead against himself For he saith p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony that it be done sub populi Assistentis conscientia that by their presence either their Faults might be published or their good Acts commended that so it might appear to be a just and lawful Ordination which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all And after Cyprian saith It came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolick practice that a Bishop should be chosen plebe presente not by the Votes of the people says the Doctor One would think all this time the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause and yet will out-face plain light to defend it Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes if their presence their Testimony commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate their knowledge and assistance can consist with Patronage and obtruding of Ministers on the people as a Master of a Flock setteth a Sheepherd over his Sheep it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor 's Conclusion If these do not import the peoples consent to be required and so amount to Election let any indifferent Reader judge It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power but maketh it a Divine Right and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust and unlawful Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgment there would be few Ministers in the Church of England and so more cause for separation than he is aware of but I do not improve his Testimony to that end The Doctor p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad and chuse the good and yet hath the Brow to say That this is no more then their Testimony but if Testimony be chusing we require no more but Testimony It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people to see what they had to say against them and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors For 1. This was never declared to be necessary and appointing Governours unjust or unlawful without it as it is in our case 2. We have proved that the people have power of Suffrage and of chusing which was not granted by Severus That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo is such an Argument against us as sheweth a very weak cause especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing For it is Election we speak of not Ordination in which we confess the people have no hand neither doth Origen say That this Ordination could proceed without the peoples being more concerned about the person than standing by while he was Ordained and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is p. 318. That the people upon this Assuming the power of Elections caused great Disturbance and disorders in the Church To this I answer in general 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election whether on Christ's Institution or any subsequent ground if the latter let him shew it if the former it is improper to say they assumed what was ever their due The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people after that priviledge had been out of their hand for some time 2. There is no Institution of Christ but inconveniences may follow on it as long as sinful men have the managing of it Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops and Presbyters Yea of civil power in the hands of Magistrates yea of power of Election in the hands of Patrons It were easie to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose Will the Doctor thence conclude that all these should be abolished 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced as following on the peoples Election of their Pastors as of most other things The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years that this power of the people lasted unviolated and that through all the Christian Churches I do not deny but more there might be but when so few occurr as observable to a man of so great reading it saith more against the Doctors design than all these Instances say for it 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people and leading them into Factions and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy in the degenerate State of the Church and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds and were in a mean condition so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur and imparity than against popular Elections As is evident from Ammian Marcellin whom the Doctor citeth as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome when the Contest was about Damasus where he sheweth That they aspired to that Bishoprick with all their might considering how the Bishop was enriched Oblationibus Matronarum rode in Chariots were Gorgeously attired fared sumptuously and saith They might have shuned these inconveniences had they despised this grandeur and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces whose humble carriage poor fare and mean habit commended them to God and good men 5. It is worth our Observation that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ when the Church was in her Integrity and had not degenerated as she did afterward 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances to wit the Magistrate ought to suppress them and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly as they take the Sacraments though peoples priviledge from them that walk unworthy of them When inconveniences fall in we must take God's way not our own to set things right again Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all the Doctors Alledgeances on this head but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were For the â—st Instance the Disorder at Antioch it was not as he representeth it about the chusing of a new Bishop to a vacant place but about putting an Arian Bishop at least supposed to be so into the place of Eustathius who had long been peaceably in that place and regularly chosen but was injuriously deposed by the Arians Neither was Eustathius chosen at last as the Doctor saith but rid out the Storm and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Hereticks And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose The next Instance is at Caesarea The person that carried the Election was Basil the Magistrates and the worst of the people opposing him Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth and it cannot be justified but cannot infer
bring Papists to the Church tho' it proved after a while rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass. And King Edward 6th with the Council did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West who had risen in defence of Popery saying that the Service that now they had in English was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible and the Mass and this Service may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass than between it and all the Worship of God that the Scripture giveth account of to have been practiced in the Apostolick Church 2. This may appear if we consider the Original of this Service it was taken out of several Popish Books the Prayers out of the Breviary the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual Adminstration of the Lords Supper out of the Mâ—ss-book and Consecration of Bishops out of the Pontifical as any may see who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together Sect. 12. I know it will be said that they retain only those parts of those Books that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and used in the primitive times But this is no sufficient defence for 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original yet being now of late so grosly abused to Idolatry and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists rather than like Apostolick Worship and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds why should we chuse their way of worship and in so doing both differ from the primitive times especially the Apostles times and from all other Reformed Churches 2. It is false that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers it is indeed said by some that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use oâ— weak Christians but that he or any other such did compose this Frame or any thing like it is denyed and I have proved that there was no such thing in these Times The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great Anno 600. or thereabout other parts were added by other Popes the Responds came not in till many years after What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists James Peter Matthew Mark is now so exploded as learned men among our Brethren do not plead for them This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy about which more might have been said but I have said more than at first I intended SECT VIII The other Terms of Communion that they impose considered I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse about thesâ— other Terms of Communion that his Church imposeth and we scruple And first I take notice that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals and pretending that they judge they esteem the Terms of Communion unlawful but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them He saith Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion The Answer to this is easie 1. They were charged with Separation and in answering the Dr's Sermon acted the part of Defendants it was enough for that deâ—ence to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy and against the Ceremonies Didoclavius the Author of the Book called the English Popish Ceremonies Mr. Jeans Treasuâ—e out of Rubish a Treatise of Divine Worship English Puritanism Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies Smectymn G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists and many other pieces There is so much said in these and yet unanswered that it was needless to repeat what is there said I must be guilty of the same fault if it be one having at length disputed against the Ceremonies and proved them to be unlawful to be used in a Piece entituled A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship against Mr. Geoâ—ge Ritchel and others I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written provided I leave nothing unanswered that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments but we are ready to be concluded by a Prison instead of Arguments but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low because our Persons and worldly Interests are so Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument out of his Sermon against our Separating that there ought to be no Separation where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine of this I have given my judgment above Part 2. S. 1. Section 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship and alledged the Cross in Baptism to be a Substantial part of Worship Hence the Dr. undertaketh p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship 2. That the Cross is not made such The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship to wit Substantial and Circumstantial or Accidental and alledgeth that many of us are misled by not considering it I much desire the clearing of it and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith that The Nonconformists great Principle is That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship they said that made True Worship but without it an Act might be Worship that is False Worship and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship This Subject I have discoursed at large in the Book above cited cap. 3. sect 1 3 4. But shall now a little consider what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship was Worship either Real or Substantial for they well know that the Meeting-place the Ministers Maintenance the Pulpit Communion-Table c. are designed for Worship and yet are no Worship Real nor Imaginary Substantial nor Accidental True nor False If he mean by being designed for Worship that the person doing such an Act intendeth to Worship God by so doing which I cannot take to be his meaning I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act
Commanded by God nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature and dictated by it nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship but is only imposed by the Will of man is unlawful to be used in that Worship but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such Ergo c. The major is clear for that must in that case be Will-worship the minor is proved by what is said and the conclusion followeth â—iâ—syllogistica Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolick and purest Primitive Church Christ with his Disciples Sate or leaned they used the table gesture then made decent by civil custom and yet they used as much humility in receiving and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do or can In after Ages this Practice was not used it is well known that in Tertullians time and till the beginning of the Fifth Century they did not use to Kneel on any Lords Day between Easter and Pentecost so much as at Prayer and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it how then did they make the Communion Kneeling A third ground is this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature with a Religious respect to the Creature but this is unlawful c. The first proposition is clear for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them that we Kneel and it will not be denyed that we there adore God Religiously The second proposition I prove because Protestants do generaly condemn Praying before an Image as on other accounts so on this because it is an adoring of God before a Creature with a Religious respect to it let our Brethren shew us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship as they do the other they deny that they give any Worship to the Image as we do with reference to the Elements A fourth Ground is this Practice as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent hath been grosly abused to Idolatry the Papists in the same external way worshiping the Hoste And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christs Bodily presence in the Sacrament and the Papists profess that if they did not believe that they would not so Kneel and is it fit that we should so symbolize with them which by this Practice we do to that degree that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs by the spectators of both These grounds I have but hinted being spoken to more largely by others Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies she may impose some use of Images c. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages All this discourse might have been waved for neither Mr. A. nor any of us did ever make that a ground of Separation tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground If they will remove the present Ceremonies we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them nor out of fear of what may come Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth and then refuteth is Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface he should have said Epistle Dedicatory to Mischief of Impositions but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is ad hominem against the Dr's ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church Ration account p. 293. And def against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth Separation from that Church Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joyning with the Church of England but Worshiping God in Meeting apart from it Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book to set it off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Letters of three French Divines Printed first in French and then in English ad pompam for it is little ad pugnam But he might know what ever difference we give to learned and good men their authority without Scripture proof which we yet desiderate will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice let the Dr. call it obstinacy or by what name he pleaseth The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden to the Bp. of London the authority of which Letter not of the learned Author of it we have good cause to neglect because it is apparent to any that read it that it is written by a stranger to us upon gross mis-information of our principles For he saith page 404. that he could not have perswaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England And I join with him so far that I know not nor hear of one Non-conformist of that opinion but thus it seems we are by our Brethren represented abroad and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England yea in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and that hold truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held so he page 408. he also page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher as very ridiculous and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists sheweth him to be either a very great stranger to them or somewhat that is worse Let any now judge whether such a Testimony be to be received against us Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it to be an ingenious and sober Person but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party He lamenteth our Divisions so do we he is for complyance with the Ceremonies being setled but is far enough from approving of them The former part of this I impute to his being less concern'd to consider these things than we are He stateth our Separation mainly