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
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
Ministers whom he taunteth as high pretenders to and self-applauders in wisdom and self-denial would in so critical a Time have joined with them against the common Enemy or let them know their Sense of the present state of things Except in their Ceremonies the Non-conformists were never backward to join with them and much less at that time for letting the Church-men know their sense of things I know not what occasion they had for that except in their Sermons in which they were asplain and faithful against Popery as their Brethren were He next falleth heavily on the Plea for Peace and true and only way of Concord as most Vnseasonable and Divisive pieces The Author of these Books is of age and ability to answer for himself and yet living and writing I need say nothing for him only this I make bold to say abating the vehemency of the stile and forwardness of that learned man's genius which sometimes run into over-lashes that another cannot so well defend as himself for the substance of the Books let the Dr. try it when he will he may possibly find it a hard-enough Task to deal with them What that Author saith in the name of the whole party which the Dr. taketh advantage from p. 37. doth not oblige the party further than they see Cause to own it Sect. 28. The Reverend Dr. doth begin p. 39. to give account of the occasion and Design of his Sermon which was answered by several Hands and in defence of which this Book now under our consideration was written I shall concern my self little about it being ready to give all possible Charity to the design of so worthy a person in undertaking and managing that Affair I shall consider what is said on this occasion no further than shall be needful to the defence I now manage of our present way It is most injurâ—ous that he asserteth that by such Books as he had mentioned the zeal of many was turned off from the Papists against those of the Church Is there any thing in these Books that favoureth Papists or any thing that maketh the Church of England worse than that of Rome If withdrawing from the Corruptions of the Church be defended this hath no tendency to lessen Zeal against Papists He that complaineth of hard usage tho' without cause should not so retaliate as to call his Brethren who differ from him and give reasons for their so doing an enraged but unprovoked company of Men. This and much of that nature we resolve patiently to bear He must give us leave to deny what he imputeth to our way p. 40. That It is a great dangerous and unaccountable Separation If his Arguments against it prove as hard as his Words it will not be easie to stand before him if this be to touch us with a soft and gentle hand as ibidem what will his severities prove Sure he hath forgot himself when with the same breath he calleth us peevish and partial men and saith he resolved to give us no just provocation by reproachful Language or personal Reflections Sect. 29. The Vnseasonableness of this make-bate Sermon is objected which he attempteth to disprove with a Flood of Words all built on this Foundation That the Church was reviled run down by a popular Fury c. This is the usual respect the learned Dr. is pleased to treat his Antagonists with Other men think that a modest Dissent and with-holding Communion in unlawful things backed with solid Reasons given for so doing was all that the Non-conformists were guilty of and that that needed not give such an Alarm as if there had been a Design to ruin the Church as he fansieth and unbyassed men will think that such a Sermon on purpose chosen to be preached before the Magistrate rather than before his Ordinary Hearers doth not savour so much of a design to guard the Consciences of the People against Non-conformity as of some other Design what that was may be easily guessed at for all that is said to the contrary I speak now of the Tendency of the thing rather than of the Intention of the person but I rather chuse to wave this matter than contend about it being more concern'd about the Truth of what was said than the Season of Saying it I shall be as little concerned about the sharpness and severity of his Sermon which is the other Objection that he answereth from p. 44. though I am sure what I have already noted in this Preface sheweth that such a way of treating Dissenters is not ab hoc homine alienum but I must do him that right as to acknowledge that there is more mildness expressed in the Sermon than here he being galled by the pungent Reasons of his Answerers yet there wants not some Vinegar in the Ink that the Sermon was written with but I confess that is so common a fault among imperfect men that we must say Veneam damus petimusque vicissim for my part I study to shun it but if I be overtaken in this fault I am willing to be admonished and corrected We think Schism as great a Sin as the Dr. doth and seeing he thinketh the blame of it is on our part I judge it but consequent to that Opinion that he exposed it and us by reason of it with all its Aggravations and if we cannot clear our selves in this matter let us lie under as much blame as he can load us with But withal I hope he will remember that if the Schism be caused by the fault of his party all the sad imports of his excellent Discourse will return on his own Head and those of his way Wherefore I wish all this had been waved and the merits of the Cause only minded Sect. 30. The Expression that his Adversaries are so offended with to wit that he saith p. 49. The most godly People among them can least endure to be told of their faults is as I think not sufficiently vindicated by saying that He meant it of them who will not hear their own Teachers telling them of the sin of Separation as Mr. B. alledgeth for they that are so unteachable are not the most godly of the Non-conformists I hope there are among them who can hear Sin of whatever sort charged on them and soberly consider what is said and if on Enquiry they be convinced of a fault will humble themselves and confess if not will soberly clear their Innocency by Reasons Far less is it a fit Vindication of this Assertion to apply what he had said to Dr. O. Mr. B. Mr. A. and the rest of the Answerers of his Sermon I hope he doth not think that Defence of Truth or of that which one is convinced to be such is alwaies the Sin of not enduring to be told of faults Neither do I by so saying referr the determining of our Debates to mens Fancies which he hinteth p. 47. that we call the Dictates of Conscience I am sorry that he doth
so neither was it pulled down among us in a day King Hen. 8. began this Work but did it so lamely that Protestants were little satisfied There wanted not Non-conformists then who were all the true Protestants many of them laid down their Lives for their Non-conformity After him his Son Edw. 6. a religious and zealous Prince reformed many things but not all at once for the Liturgy was twice Reformed in his Reign Full. Ch. Hist. book 7. p. 386. once in his First Year and again in a Parliament held in his 5 6. Years and again in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth there were also some Alterations made in the Rubrick 1 Jacob. 1603. saith the same Author And it is known that several things unreformed in Edw. 6's Reign were after taken away as may be seen by comparing his Injunctions with what afterward was practised in them We have mention of Coming to Confession in Lent Art. 9. of High Mass Art. 21. Prayer for the Dead is expresly injoined in the form of bidding of Common Prayers all which were afterward removed name and thing yea these very Injunctions gave people Hope of a further Reformation for they were only intended till a Parliament should be called And Art. 27. People are injoined not to violate the Ceremonies not as yet abrogated which gave the people confidence that such Superstitions were not to be continued as a Burden to Mens Consciences but were used for the present supposed necessity Sect. 2. The Case is far otherwise with us we are put beyond all Hope of Relief a Yoke of Humane Ceremonies wreathed on our Neâ—k without any probability of being loosed from it For after the King 's happy Restauration then there was the fairest opportunity that could be wished for Condescendence and Accommodation the Ceremonies having gone into Disuetude for 20 years and the Nation being more generally against them than ever before by the Light of the Word that had for so many years been more freely and fully held forth than before and when a great number of Ministers presented a Petition for Peace to their Brethren then commissionate to Reform the Liturgy and used the strongest Reasons the most earnest Obtestations and the greatest Condescentions that could be to obtain either a taking away of what was grievous to their Consciences or at least a forbearance in them all which may be seen at length in the Book it self yet nothing was to be obtained but Impositions made more strict and our Yoke made heavier than before rather than lighter so that there remained no more Hope for our selves or our Posterity but either we and they must take up with a Worship that we are convinced is mixt with some things that maketh it displeasing to God or live without God's Ordinances or worship God apart by our selves May not we appeal to God and to all the World That whatever our Brethren talk of Peace and Vnity we were for Peace but when we spake they were for Wars Psal. 120. 6. while they will not abate nor bear with us in one Ceremony which themselves declare Indifferent for that Peace and Vnity that they extol so highly yea for the keeping out of Popery the re-entry of which they pretend to fear by our Divisions Sect. 3. These things being considered it is very evident That our Case is not parallel with that of the first Non-conformists in reference to Communion with the Church and therefore the Reasons that moved them to go along with the present way do not conclude that we ought to do the same for 1. There was then a necessity apprehended by some of the best men for retaining some of the Ceremonies that had been in use in Popery lest too sudden and visible a Change it being the out-side of Religion that the multitude doth most consider should have scared the people from owning the Reformation and we know Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit On this Ground even the Apostles retained for a time a little of the Jewish Observations Act. 15. 28 29. I do not say that there was a necessity for this but it was then thought to be and therefore must needs influence their minds and practice as if there really had been such a necessity But now it is evident to unbyassed men that there is no such necessity for retaining these Ceremonies Pâ—pists are so far from being brought over to us by symbolizing with them that they conceive Hope from that very thing of our returning to them as hath been made appear by several passages in their Writings and Discourses which I now stay not to rehearse And in very deed our Service especially in Cathedrals cometh so much nearer to their way than it doth either to the way of the Apostolick Church so far as it is recorded in Scripture or to the way of most of the Reformed Churches that it were no hard task to bring in Popish Worship abating the Service being in Latin and Discipline for in that also we are at no great distance from Popery among us without being observed by the Vulgar And the necessity is yet the less for retaining them among us that our People have not been bred in Popery as in those Times when the Ceremonies were retained and therefore are not in that hazard that they were to â—all back into Popery upon the abolishing of them yea it is so far from that that the disuse of these might make Popery to be more forgotten among the people these being some of the Ornaments by which that whorish Worship was once decked Sect. 4. A Second Ground why the reason of their cleaving to the Church-way doth not conclude for our doing the like is They had cause to look on their Grievances but as temporary and knew that further Reformation was designed and might be in a short time expected and therefore it was Reason that they should rather forbear for that time their Edification I mean the external means of it that they might have had by pure Ordinances rather than seem to make a Breach This Reason doth not at all touch us who are out of all hope of such purity of Ordinances in the Church as is pleasing to God or consistent with His Acceptance I mean from us who know the right way for I shall not judge what acceptance an impure worship invincibly not known to be such may find with God they had not in vain essayed to make Peace with their Brethren and been rejected with a peremptory â—leaving to the least Indifferent Ceremony rather than to satisfie the Consciencious Seruples of those who doubted which is our Case Therefore we are even by them who blame us for what they force us to brought to a necessity of worshipping God apart from them seeing we neither can now do it nor hope that afterward we may do it with them And this our Necessity is heightned and our Case made yet more different from theirs at the Reformation when we consider That
that was a time of Reformatio Status convalescentiae ours is rather status decidentiae a time of Encreasing rather than of Diminishing the number of Superstitions and coming nearer the Popish Modes rather than going further from them Instances of this are not a few take for a taste the allowing of Plays on the Lord's day the zealous promoting of the Book of Sports by that party is not yet forgotten whereas that day was Art. 24. of King Edw. the 6's Injunctions before mentioned appointed to be given wholly to God in hearing the Word of God read and taught in private and publick Prayters c. A further Conviction in this Matter may be abundantly had from a book entituled The Advances of England toward Popery which Book tho' our Reverend Author labours to disparage p. 35. of his Preface yet agreeth so well with what men see with their Eyes that it is not fit to be slighted for Tho' some be mentioned and blamed in that Book that appeared most zealous against popery yet it is no Rarity for Words and Deeds to clash Quid verba audio cum facta videam And if it be true that the Author before his death was sensible of the Injury he had done to some yet his Evidence that he bringeth will still be compared with what every one saw to be the tendency of some mens way I might here alledge the obligation of the National Covenant that we are under as they were not to whom the Dr. would make our Case parallel tho I never thought that that Bond made any new Duties or Sins that were not such antecedently yet the Oath of God maketh the Tye that we are under to Duty and against Sin more weighty and aggravateth the sin of doing what is contrary to it but of this afterwards I conclude then that the present Reasons of Separation would not have held from the beginning of the Reformation quod erat probandum Sect. 5. The learned Dr. p. 2. after explaining the terms of his Assertion which we have denied proveth the Identity of Reason in their Case and ours by the Ceremonies Liturgy c. being the same Let all this be admitted as they were dissatisfied with these then so are we now but we join not in these practices as they did and worship God without them as they did not because our Case doth not make these things appear so needful as theirs did because we have no Hope of Reformation as they had beside our being under an additional Tye against such Superstitions which they were not under Not content with this the Dr. thinks to prove that we are more obliged to join in the Church's Worship than those at the Reformation 1. Because of the Number Diligence and Learning of our allowed Preachers 2. Because the Ceremonies are retrenched 3. Because of the Mischiefs that we have seen of Separation To the first I answer As what we complain of in the present Ministry is not the Ground of our with drawing though it is a sad Grievance and tendeth to make the Ordinances of the Lord to be abhorred in the Eyes of the people as the ways of Eli's Sons did 1 Sam. 2. 17. so neither can their Commendation by him given be a sufficient Reason for our joining in corrupted Ordinances I confess the number of the present Ministers is greater than in those days the generality of the Clergy continuing Popish and I am far from derogating from some among them who are learned and diligent and â— add pious men and sound Protestants But as for the far greatest part of the Parish Ministers that the people are most edified by or disappointed of their Edification they are either Strangers to England or strangely byassed who see not cause to complain of their Ignorance Idleness and vitious Conversation if not of all these three To the Second I know not what retrenchment hath been made of Ceremonies since the beginning of Q. Elizabeth's Reign but I know Additions have been made if not as to Imposing yet as to Use and some Additions to the Holidays hath been imposed but if they were fewer than they are they are enough to corrupt the Worship of God and furnish as strong an Argument to forbear such corrupted Worship as if they were more numerous A grain of Arsenick may justly make one forbear a Dish in which it is as well as if there were two or three in it To the Third As he hath seen Mischiefs of Separation and we do not extenuate them so have we of Impositions yea all the Mischiefs of that kind are justly imputable to these Impositions they being the Cause of the Separation and causa causae est causa causati Our Ancestors had hope of freedom from that Yoke as hath been said which we have not therefore no Inconvenience that is not our Sin can warrant us to join with and in the depravations of the Worship of God which were our Sin as neither can such inconvenience excuse us to live without Ordinances alwaies as the former Non-conformistâ— might do for a time Sect. 6. In his 2. Section he cometh to the proof of the other part of his Assertion to wit That there was no Separation practised or allowed by those who were most Zealous for the Reformation He confesseth there were different apprehensions about some few Things but denieth that they were the Things now Scrupled at and that any Separation was made because of them I shall not much dispute either of these because the Cause that I defend is not much concerned in them but standeth on a better foundation than the opinions or practices of men And because our case and reasons differs from theirs as hath been shewed yet shall I a little examine what he alledgeth under both these heads For the former of them he proveth it only from Mr. Roger Scrupling only the square Cap and Tippet and B. Hooper Scrupling only the Episcopal Hâ—bit to which afterward he submitted And Bucer and others scrupled the Liturgy till it was reformed but none after that scrupled any of the Things now in Controversy Here is Fallâ—cious if not false History for with Rogers and Hooper called Ring-leaders of the party by one who was no friend to them are reâ—koned others who had sted beyond Sea and suck'd in both the Air and Discipline of the place where they lived and renounced all Ceremonies practised by Papists conceiving that such ought not only to be clipt with the Sheers but to be shaved with the Razor yea all the stums thereof to be pluckt out Fuller Ch. Hist. Lib. 7. pa. 402. These fugitivâ—s if it be not too bad a name for them I understand of Hen. 8's Reign of whom Fox Act. and Mon. Book 3. p. 145. in the History of Hooper one of them they being also joined with them by Fuller Is all this no more than two mens scrupling only some Habits Or is not here rather a considerable number exactly of our opinion
am at home I would join with the Publick Assembly in the True Protestant Church of England but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart and in that Assembly I am a Member till I can find a sinless access to the Publick Assembly where I desire to be a Member I suppose the Eastern Christians such as are sober and serious of them and are duly informed of the State of our Debates would not think me no Christian for this Answer nor deny me Occasional Communion for it I am sure if they did they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is p. 111. We were baptized in the Church of England and received as Members of it If then we communicate with it only occasionally we renounce our membership Ans. Whereever one be baptized that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholick Church If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France and have his Child there baptized in the English way or in the French way Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England and there have Education and continue The Dr. had not it seems when his Book had come this length hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission as a Member of the Church of England Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion though not by our being baptized in this Church yet by our residence in it and owning the same â—aith with it and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin and therefore we do not renounce our Membership but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion and it is no wonder for his Party forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing desire none of our communion as appeareth in excluding us by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless and we judge unlawful But whatever he think of it it is all that we can do We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion p. 111 112. is pure Trifling unworthy of so learned an Author That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church For a man may occasionally have Communion in publick when he cannot have it in private and that often And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church which we would not do in a false Church but rather be without the Ordinances for that time Again We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church in any of Her corruptions we should alwaies abstain from and reprove those as he speaketh These things being considered the difficult Case of Conscience that he fansies hath an easie resolution That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined to shun the sinful Impositions that are in publick we should wait on them there rather than elsewhere but when that occasion is not offered we may join with a Church in some things corrupted in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it Sect. 14. His next Argument is That here are no Bounds to the peoples Fancies of purer Administrations and less defective ways of Worship so that there can be no stop to separation in this way This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs more than with solid Reasons which he but undeservedly most severely had taxed Mr. A. for he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over and going to Anabaptists and thence to the Quakers and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church unless they be secure that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fansy any defect in it Noâ—hing here that hath a shadow of Argument but it is already objected and answered but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions I answer It is not only for purer Administrations that we withdraw but to shun sinful Impositions which I am sure neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly alledge Neither is it the glaring visibility but the real Scripture-warrant for our way that condemneth them for departing from us Nor will Fansied Defects in our way excuse them but real sinful Terms in our Communion But that some will without cause separate from us is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you Such a way of reasoning from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this had forgotten it seems what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for It is incident even to wise men Dum vitant vitia that in contraria currunt it is downright for us and against himself What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions as to practice What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelesly divide the Church if he intended it against any others let him answer it The sad effects of R. William's Separation in New-England do not concern us further than to lament them unless the Dr. can prove that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection that he had made I insist not on save that I observe his usual way here also his representing his Adversaries as if they held That Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces We think the less defective that Worship be it is the better but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion a sufficient ground of Separation Far less do we think that the Peoples apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture or found Reason And least of all do we think that such
affirmative yet the manner how God is to be worshipped is set down negative and therefore he hath yet given us no Duty commanded in the second Commandment but only the way of worshipping God by an Image forbidden which he shunneth to say or we must seek for some other way to express the affirmative part of this Commandment Sect. 9. We may then conclude that it is injoined in this Command That we should worship God in the way that He hath prescribed to us in His Word This is elsewhere commanded Exod. 25. 9 40. and the contrary is severely reproved Isa. 66. 3. Ier. 7. 31. From all these places it is evident that God is to be worshipped according to his own Institution and no otherwise And I hope the Dr. will not dissent from the generality of Divines who hold that all Sins and Duties held forth in other places of Scripture are reducible to one of the Commandments And to which of them can this duty of worshipping God by the prescript of His VVord be reduced if not to the second Hence we conclude that the affirmative part of the second Commandment is that we ought to worship God in the way that He himself hath prescribed in the Word And if the Dr. can make it appear that the Liturgy and Ceremonies are prescribed there whether plainly or obscurely directly or by consequence we shall own them 5. Whereas we say that it is a prohibition comprehended in the second Commandment That we must worship God by our own Inventions He saith No Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God but such as God Himself hath somewhere forbidden but He hath no where forbidden the Liturgy and Ceremonies The meaning of this must be a general prohibition of humane Invenâ—ions is not sufficient but notwithstanding that they are generally forbidden Men may devise and bring into God's worship and impose on others what they please if that in particular be not forbidden by a particular precept wherein it is named or otherwise particularized VVhat a mad exposition of the second Commandment is this He might as well say when it is said Thou shalt not kill I may for all that kill any man I please if there be not a particular command not to kill such a man. Are there particular prohibitions of the several Ceremonies that were used in Popery or Must the Bible have been made so voluminous as to mention every circumstantiate Case otherwise we will take no notice of its general Precepts Is not this stretching and forcing of Scripture to defend a bad Cause which he below chargeth us with Sect. 10. The Dr. as conscious to the insufficiency of this shift cometh in the Fifth place to excuse the Ceremonies from falling under the second Command by telling us of two sorts of humane Inventions forbidden in it and no other 1. Such as go about to represent God and so to disparage Him For he saith the reason of the law to wit the spiritual and invisible nature of God extendeth only to these Ans. 1. It seems then worshipping God by or before a Crucifix is not here forbidden for that doth not go about to represent or disparage God but only to represent CHRIST as Man. The same may be said of all the use of the Images of Saints in the worship of God that is among the Papists that is they are all innocent by this Doctrine For if these be not forbidden in the second Commandment the Dr. will find it hard to refute these practices from Scripture If such a passage had dropt from the Pen of a Non-conformist how would the Dr. have improved it against the whole Party as doing the Papists work for them as he hath charged them on far less grounds than this is Ans. 2. Seeing other waies of uncommanded VVorship are condemned in Scripture as hath been shewed what reason is there to say that this way of it alone is here meant This is to expound Scripture ad libitum and amplifie or restrain it as our fancy or interest leadeth us Ans. 3. I deny not the spiritual and inviâ—â—ble nature of God to be a good Reason of this Law but I deny it to be either the sole reason of it or the reason of it that is exprest in the Law it self which is that He is a jealous God and will punish the corrupters of His Worship Now this Reason of the Law doth evidently extend to all waies of worshipping Him that He hath not injoined making bold to worship Him in any of these ways being a derogation from that soveraignty that He hath over Men especially in His own VVorship which hath a nearer dependance on His Institution than other thiâ—gs have Sect. 11. The other sort of humane Inventions that he will exempt from the scope and sence of this Commandment is Such as relate to the manner and form of Worship supposing the Worship it self to be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law. Ans. 1. I desire to know of the Dr. what difference he maketh between the manner or form of Worship and the way of Worship when he supposeth the way of it to be agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law while yet the Controversie is whether the manner and form of it be so This is a subtilty that I cannot reach but Words must serve to palliate a bad Cause when Reason cannot defend it Will then the Dr. say that the way of Divine Worship is injoined in this Command but not the manner and form of it I hope he will not deny that the object of worship is fixed in the first Commandment and also the way of it so far as by that word is expressed the duties of natural worship the inward affections and actings of the Soul on God that are requisite in His Worship Wherefore if he will with all Divines except Papists and some Lutherans allow this to be another Precept and not a part or explication of the first he must say that here is appointed all instituted worship that is all the means manner external forms and ways by which the Lord will have us to worship him to wit that we should make nor devise none of them to our selves And this he was pleased to express by the most absurd and most common way that Men had devised to themselves to worship God by to wit Images as in the rest of the Negative Precepts he useth to express all the sins included in it by one that is more notable than the rest Ans. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny that most of the Popish Ceremonies as Oil Salt Spittle c. are forbidden in this Commandment or if he do deny it let him tell us where they are forbidden or whether they be forbidden any where or not but they pertaâ—n to the manner and form of worshipping God as well as our Ceremonies do Further let him tell us whether it is possible there should be any Superstition in the manner and
Communion They separate because the Church is polluted with these We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these we think the fault of other men I mean in things of that nature no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church so that in effect they go away from the Church We are driven away by the Church Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church is It weakâ—neth the Câ—use of the Reformation This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines and he beginneth with Calvin whose words too long here to be transcribed do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful because of lesser Impurities or great Faults while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her yea he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181 182. and being anathematized for not complying with these Corruptions a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome which is parallel to our case But saith the Dr. he doth not mean indifferent Rites Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites but sinful Ceremonies And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of Enâ—land with that of Rome as â—o causes of Separation yet here there is a likeness the one rejecteth some of her Members because they will not sin with her and will force her Impositions on their Consciences and so doth the other Another Author he citeth is Daillie giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them And what need was there to mention them when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly if the differences had been such as we might safely have yielded to then Separation had been rash and unjust So say we for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship as we cannot to that which is greater to wit idolatrous Worship Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus who saith If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in Her Communion Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England for these and such-like faults We refuse the use of these and because of that the Church casteth us out of Her Communion And if Amyrald us say That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema we leave him to his own Sentiments in that but are of another opinion It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies when they are compared with these Romish Abominations but when we consider them by themselves and compare them with Scripture we cannot think so of them The Dr. further urgeth us with the Answers given by Claude Paion and Turretine to the Book entituled Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies this is both false and inconcludent It is false for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church because of their Ceremonies One of the chief Objects saith he that presented it self to our Fathers was that of the great number of the Ceremonies which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship making it look partly like Judaism and partly like Heathenism He saith It was without doubt a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and much more to that purpose What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head I know not for I have not seen them This Argument is also inconcludent because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery Sect. 5. One passage he citeth p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine that no tolerable superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience are sufficient grounds of Separation And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by fâ—lse Doctrine To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation And I deny not that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable to wit where men will use them and do not impose them on others They that are left to their liberty may well tolerate others in the use of them but I do not so well see that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience for Superstition is Sin and no Sin is tolerable in that case To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer That it is absolutely false and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof for that I may not deny as he asserteth without reason 1. A Superstitious Riâ—e is one of the Traditions of Men in the Worship of God and that the Scripture doth simply condemn without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisâ—ical Washings were enforced with but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness Mat. 15. 6 9. but of this afterward 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Riâ—e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will make it to defile the Conscience as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine If this Doctrine were true men might impose what they will in the Worship of God they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used or Papists either if they keep but orthodox mind and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites but only sic volo sic jâ—beo To what purpose he citeth le Blanch shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists I see not but that many Names of Authors make a shew and it argueâ—h great reading for he saith not one word of the â—eremonies and we all know that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England but those of Rome it self yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds Sect. 6. It was needful that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations home to his purpose which every Reader could hitherto hardly â—iscern how it should be done Wherefore p. 185. he telleâ—h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by but the things that we now scruple And he telleth us how we would be laughed at all
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
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
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