be holding up of the hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant c. Now Sir let me suppose as you do suppose that the Pastors of the Independent Churches should baptize several persons but never admit them into their Churches by this ceremony of holding up the hand let them baptize many thousands and these thousands chuse other Pastors who are rightly qualified and ordained by Prayer Fasting and Imposition of hands of the Eldership The Independents cannot charge these Churches with schism and separation from their Churches for they never admitted them by that ceremony and rite of Admission of holding up the hand into their Churches Now Sir apply it for about twenty years there was publick Baptism administred but not by your Liturgy much less with the Cross How many thousands do you think in the space of so many years may be baptized none of these were ever admitted into your Church by those words VVe receive this child c. and sign him with the sign of the cross But of many such do our Congregations consist who were never your members why then do you call them separatists from you Besides Sir your Liturgy admits of private Baptism and then no such admission by the Cross and abundance have been thus baptized without it to my knowledg For my own particular I cannot tell whither I was so admitted my Parents never told me so and for my godly Father I am sure he hated humane inventions in the Worship of God I was born they told me in winter time extream for cold the house half a mile from Church and I being their only Son at that time it 's a question whether they would carry me forth in such an extream cold season so far As for the Church-Register that nor any other that ever I saw specifies nothing of my being admitted into your Church by the Cross but only of my being baptized but that say you and truly is into the Catholick Church No Registers then recording who were so admitted it will be hard matter for these who are ancient to prove their admission into your Church and if we were not I know not how we can now be admitted For this Rite of Admission is used only at Baptism unless we will yield to be Rebaptized and so to be admitted by the Cross this you will not admit no more than we We read of the Apostles admitting of many believers God added to the Church Act. 2. ult but never that they used this rite of admission the sign of the Cross only this is our happiness we are more wife more holy greater lovers of Christ than ever the Apostles were though we profess we are built upon the foundation of Apostles and Prophets Ephes 2.20 that their examples are too low for us Besides Sir is it not meet that when children come to years of discretion they should then be called before the Church to declare whether they own their Baptismal Covenant and also their admission into the Church they are reputed members of as you say the Independents require their Children to own the Church-Covenant let them now be members of the Church by their own consent Truly Sir if it come to that since we read what your Canons say of the Cross and how it is abused in Popery and how strange this is to the Apostolical admission we should not like it But are not children members of the same Churches with their Parents though we think so yet this is nothing to the practise of your Church For as in your administration of Baptism the Parental Covenant Abraham and his seed which is the ground of the Administration is wholly omitted so the Parent he must stand by as if he were a Heathen the business is only with the God fathers and Godmothers an invention of Higinus Bishop of Rome about 144 years after Christ who first added these to Baptism a person of no great worth of whom it is said Nihil praclari de gubernatione factis ejus commemorari potest So much cause have I to beg pardon for my defects in the education of my own Children that I would not be Sponsor for the child of the best friend I have in England But however this is not it but the sign of the Cross with such words that makes the admission into your Church 2. Q. But if there be a Separation or Schism the question is who is the cause of it A. Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is saith Bishop Land in which you justifie him Ration Account p. 324 325. I humbly conceive that whoever imposes other terms of Communion than Christ hath imposed he or they are the cause of the schism We do not say you necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion Ibid. p. 332. I pray do not think that we suppose you impose such gross things upon us as Rome imposed on you No Sir we bless God for that great advance which was made by our first Reformers But whereas you say you retain only such innocent Ceremonies which were in use before the Papal power grew to that height I pray first are you sure that All the Churches did use them 2. Did they use all that are imposed on us I know they used others but did they use to tye up their Ministers to such syllables in prayer or else must not pray Did they kneel at the Lords Supper we know the contrary c. 3. Did they impose these as conditions of Communion But grant there were such Ceremonies and other things as now imposed upon us I will say of them Downh de Antichristo p. 151 what Bishop Downham saith of the opinions and traditions differing from the holy Scriptures which the Pontificians say were received of the Fathers they are to be referred to that Apostasie the Apostle foretold 2 Thes 2.3 when he said the mystery of iniquity already worketh v. 7. And I pray Sir since the examples and practises of those Churches are made so much use of against us let me give you my thoughts in a similitude of your own In your Epistle to your Rational Account c. dedicated to the King you tell his Majesty that the Church of England in the late confusions suffered an Eclipse but since his Majesties Restauration she hath recovered her luster c. Sir we observe when the Sun riseth it doth not suddenly go into an Eclipse but gradually so that common people do not mind it until the light of it be sensibly obscured so nor doth it come out of its Eclipse suddenly at once but gradually but it will not cease its motion till it appears in its glory It is the same with the Gospel-Church it did not presently suddenly fall into that dark Eclipse which it suffered under the Antichristian Papal power but it got into it by degrees the Churches not
great question about the Ruling Elder but I am not to meddle with it now Our Brethren of the Presbyterian judgment I suppose yield the question they may and ought to unite to make up one Governing Church but I do not fully understand their meaning Suppose twenty Parishes and Congregations that meet together to worship God and twenty Ministers belonging to them are these twenty Parishes distinct Churches as to Word and Sacraments so that he that is Pastor in one Church hath nothing to do in another Parish as to feeding them with Word and Sacraments but as to Government and Jurisdiction one Minister with the rest of the Classis have power over them all if this be the meaning I am not satisfied in it Dr. Stilling fleet hath declared his judgment they may unite I wish he had pleased to have opened his mind fully about it If he will yield but this That constitution of a Church wherein a Pastor cannot possibly feed with Word and Sacraments watch over and govern his flock according to Christ be it Diocesan or Parochial that constitution is not according to Christ and consequently unlawful as Scripture-light and nature's light will prove it I should it may be come up to him to perform our duty by Substitutes this may please them who make their own brains not Gods word their rule and such we little regard God hath now brought me to old age in my Pilgrimage divers disputes about Church-work and Government I have read absurd unscriptural practices in Churches I have seen woful disorders and wretched effects I have heard and known great scandal but so circumstanced that a single Pastor could not proceed by Mat. 18.15 c. to remove it I have met with one of the ablest Divines in England and exercised in Government was of the same opinion with me all arising from this notion of a single Pastor with such a people making a Church and all which mischiefs might be avoided if the uniting of several particular Congregations into one particular Church were admitted which Scripture-examples and Scripture-reasons will sufficiently justifie CHAP. IV. Of SCHISM THere remains yet one thing to be spoken to viz. the great crime of Schism with which we are charged by the Fr. Deb. in his first and second Book very deeply thus also Dr. Goodman and this is the common language of them all both in Pulpit and Press To which I would take liberty to speak more largely That Schism in the Church is a great crime is readily yielded by understanding men of all parties and no party will own it though they be guilty enough of it At this day all but Conformists are Schismaticks but to the Prelatical party this sin is a stranger yea in the time of our troubles when they were in France and refused Communion with the French Protestant Churches yet a Prelatical person was not then nor can be guilty of Schism but they were Schismaticks in France What is Schism Dr. Goodman tells us p. 112 113. Schism is a voluntary separation of ones self without cause given from that Christian Church whereof once he was a member He opens his Definition p. 113 114. First It is a separation c. i. e. When a man shall refuse to join in the acts and exercises of Religion used by such a society and to submit to its authority So he that refuseth Baptism the Lords-Supper or to submit to the censures of the Church Thus he But what he means by non-submission to the censures of the Church I know not for I know but few Nonconformists that are under the Censures of their Church nor how it will agree with his second which is 2ly It must be voluntary separation So that Excommunicate persons are no Schismaticks 3ly It is separation from a particular Church 4ly Of which Church he was once a member because Schism imports division making two of that which was but one before But according to this opening of his definition I pray Sir tell us how you will prove us Schismaticks For take up your third head 1. I pray tell us what is that particular Church you mean National Diocesan Parochial As for the National I know not how you understand a National Church for as I understand it you cannot prove us Schismaticks For the Diocesan you cannot prove us Schismaticks unless the refusing to submit to Prelatical Government be Schism For the Sacraments belong not to a Diocesan Church quâ sic I suppose Dr. Goodman's judgment to be the same with the Doctor that kept the Act at the Commencement at Cambridg I heard so much of one question that I laboured much to get a view of it but could not in our parts A Conformist told me it was to this purpose Recessio a regimine Episcopali est mortale schisma he told me Damnabile schisma as it was told him I say only this to it As God gives up some men to monstrous lusts in practise so he doth others to as monstrous opinions in judgment in these days So that it must be meant the Parochial Church But 2ly I pray prove that we were members once of that particular Church you mean For the Diocesan we deny any such Church especially as your constitution is to be according to Christs Institution and therefore were not are not members of it For the Parochial Churches I pray how are we members of them 1. Not by our Baptism if that were your meaning I would soon give arguments to confute it 2. Not by my dwelling within such a Parish-bounds though I am for the Vicinity of Church-members yet I was not so simple when I was in my Place to think that all the people that dwelt within the bounds of the Parish where I was Minister must own me for their Minister as if a spot of ground measured out by a Civil constitution must make a man a member of a Church which as such is a spiritual and free society I wish Dr. Goodman could convince all the Papists that dwell within these Parishes that therefore they are members of the Church of England or Schismaticks 3. I know nothing but consent that constitutes any man a member of a Church but that we never gave either to the Priests imposed upon us by a Patron and a Prelate nor to the Parochial Church as you take Parochial Wherefore upon Dr. Goodman's definition I argue where there was no union there can be no Schism But between us and your Church there was no union Ergo no Schism why then doth he charge us with it 3ly Suppose we were members yet still you are to prove there was no cause given for our separation which though you attempt to do yet Sir you must bring other manner of arguments than Rhetorical flourishes and humane stories to convince us But one thing more Why doth he tye up his definition to a particular Church I think a man may hold Communion with that particular Church of which he is a
Quia haec scissio maximè perficitur apparet in debita communione Ecclesiastica recusanda id circo illa separatio per appropriationem singularem recto vocatur Schisma Ames Consc Having opened our description for finding out the true Schismatical Church or Persons let me give the Reader my mind under several Propositions First I reassume that which I mentioned before viz. the body of Christ is but one and that Schism is found in the visible body 2ly This body being but one hence then that this one body comes to be divided into so many particular Churches and meeting in so many particular places to celebrate the Sacrament and the other Institutions of Christ it is is but accidental and not essential to this body it being the consequent of that vast number which makes up this one body 3ly Such yet ought to be the Conformity of all these particular Churches unto the Gospel pattern the Law and Rule of their Head in their Faith and Doctrine in their Worship and Discipline in their conversation and practise I may add and constitutions that where-ever the members of this body come they may manifest their Vnity and Christian Ecclesiastical love to and with those particular Churches without any just scruple or doubt It being not in the power of any particular Church to vary in the least from that Rule and Pattern their Lord and Head hath given them for in so doing they deny him to be the Head and make themselves the Head The Head is to direct 4ly If any particular Church shall vary from that Pattern and shall impose upon the members of this body conditions of communion which our Head hath not imposed and such as from the light of Scripture we cannot but apprehend as sinful and yet will force them to subject to such conditions or else no communion that imposing Church is the schimatical Church and the guilt of Schism lyes at their door Let this Imposition be in Faith Worship Discipline or Manners Let the Church be Papal if that be a Church Episcopal Presbyterian Independent Anabaptistical Lutheran Calvinist no matter what the Imposing party is the Schismatick Why do you how dare you if you be members of that Head impose that upon the members of his Body which himself hath not we will not we must not admit any other wisdom or will in things which concern him but his own if we may admit three things which vary from his Rule we may admit three hundred and turn him out from being Head A great stir there is about the power of the Church in circumstances of worship If you mean inseparable circumstances ordering them according to the general Rule our Head hath given for the edification of the Church I know no Nonconformist such a block as to deny it but that the things imposed upon us as conditions of Communion in the Church of England as you call it are such the former discourse hath sufficiently proved the contrary Hence the Church-men of England are the Schismaticks 5ly It is an irrational thing that the Imposers of Conditions in things belonging to God should be the sole Judges of the lawfulness of their Impositions First Because there is but one word or Rule given to which the Imposers and Imposed are strictly bound and the Imposed may understand that Rule as well and better than the Imposfers else how the Protestant party will defend themselves against Rome the Imposer I know not they suppose they understood it better than Rome and so do you now think 2ly The Imposers have sin in them and may sin they are not Infallible therefore their Impositions must be judged by others 3ly If Imposers must be sole Judges and we must obey because they impose then never must the people of God obey the call to come out of Babylon Apoc. 18.4 for Imposing Babylon being the sole Judg will tell you her Impositions are all lawful and therefore you must obey 6ly Christ our Head no where requires but rather forbids our holding Communion with that Church which Imposeth such things as conditions of Communion which his members cannot subject to but with a doubtful conscience Rom. 14 23. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 He that doubteth is damned if he eat but not if because of doubting he dare not eat That there are some such giddy Christians who will find such exceptions against any Church that they cannot communicate with a clear conscience though there be no humane invention imposed but only what Christ himself hath appointed I do not deny but then let the guilt of Schism lye at their door But as to your Humane Injunctions we cannot submit to them but with a doubtful conscience at least 7ly There is great difference between a Church in which there are some corruptions but no Imposition and a Church where there is Impösition of Humane Inventions not agreeable to the Word with the first we would not doubt to communicate but not with the second Hence for the examples brought against us out of the Scripture where were corrupt Churches but no command for separation as under the Old Testament It 's very true how could they make a separation there from the Temple and the Levitical Priesthood without going expresly against the Word Might they erect another Temple Is there any such Temple under the Gospel For those in the New Testament 1st Their Churches were rightly constituted 2ly Their Pastors were rightly called 3ly Their Pastors sound in Doctrine we do not read they were charged with unsoundness 4ly For outward scandalous sins we read of none in their Pastors 5ly Their members for the major part sound though some particular members were unsound in Doctrine and conversation yet they were but few 6ly They had Christs Order and Discipline as he appointed to help themselves against those unsound and corrupt members Hence what cause was here for separation what understanding man would scruple communion with these Churches though there were some corruptions Compare yours and these But 1st Where was this Imposition of Humane Inventions in the Worship of God unless some few Schismaticks in the Church of Corinth we do not find the Churches charged with mixing any thing of theirs in the Worship of God 2ly Which of those Churches had sworn to the Great God to reform what was amiss in Doctrine Worship and Discipline and then return to their vomit again 8ly Christ our Head may hold communion with his members living in corrupt Imposing Churches and yet others of his members that see and know these corruptions must not hold communion with them still the Schism lyes upon the Imposer 1st Your Spiritual Courts having Excommunicated many gracious and sincere-hearted Christians for what cause we know a sad thing that such a solemn Ordinance should be so abused But with these gracious Christians Christ holds communion we are sure and will not your Church therefore hold Communion with them 2ly Christ holds Communion with his people in Babylon
THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed Dr. FALKNER the Friendly Debate c. Examined and Answered Together with a Discourse about Separation and some Animadversions upon Dr. STILLINGFLEET's Book ENTITULED The Vnreasonableness of Separation Observations upon Dr. Templers Sermon Preached at a Visitation in Cambridge A brief Vindication of Mr. Stephen Marshal Sed hoc nimis doleo quia multa quae in Divinis libris saluberrima praecepta sunt minus curantur tam multis presumptionibus sic plena sunt omnia ut gravius corripiatur qui per octavas suas terram nudo pede tetigerit quam qui mentem Vinolentia sepelierit August Epist 119. Cum Apostolus testetur mysterium hoc iniquitatis suo etiam tempore agi caepisse hinc intelligimus opiniones omnes Traditiones a Sacris Scripturis dissidentes quas Pontificis urgent tanquam a Patribus acceptas ad Apostasiam hanc quam praedixit Apostolus esse referendas Downham de Antichrist p. 151. LONDON Printed for Tho. Cockerill at the Three Legs in the Poultry over against the Stocks-Market 1681. THE Reader may please to take notice that this Discourse was drawn up long before now Doctor Falkner took his Degree else I had given him his Title And so something of Schism was spoke to before the Epistle to Dr. Stillingfleet could be written To the Reverend and my much Honoured Brother Dr. Edward Stillingfleet Dean of St. Pauls SIR I Hope it is no offence unto you though you be a Dean Unreas Separat p. 62. that I call you Brother since you have taught the Press how to speak soberly and amicably calling us Dissenting Brethren this is better language than Sots Rogues Fools Knaves Rebels Schismaticks which we read and hear from others As for Rebels if they be all Rebels that break the Kings Laws I believe the King will have but a few loyal subjects He hath Laws against Drunkenness Swearing Whoring Sabbath breaking and these are agreeable to the Law of God besides Laws about Hares Partridges Pheasants and against Papists c. we see men can live in opposition to these Laws yet these are not called Rebels But if the Laws of men concern the House and Worship of God concerning which God himself hath given us his own Laws to which all Princes and men are bound and unto which all their Laws ought to be conformable as we shall hear your self speak presently but that conformity we cannot see and therefore dare not assent and consent c. now we are called Rebels Schismaticks and what not Aug. Epis 119. Thus it was in pious Augustines time and this he complains of Sir speaking of your Church you tell us p. 302. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the basis and foundation of our faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2ly Our Church requires a conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it agreeable to the Word of God Twice you tell us agreeable to the Word of God to which we agree also this being the affirmative part of the second Commandment that all things in our worshipping of him be agreeable to his will and word Now Sir had you proved that all the things imposed upon us had been agreeable to the word of God you had put an end to this Controversie But though I honour and love you for the great service you have done to the Church of Christ against the Papists yet in proving the things Imposed upon us to be conformable to the word of God I humbly conceive you fall very short therefore are we still Nonconformists Several things are imposed upon us but in your whole Book I find not one Scripture you produce to shew the agreement of them with it Till then our Separation is reasonable That Schism is a great sin I agree with you and wish Christians were more convinced of it than I see they are But the Questions are 1. What is schism 2. Who is the cause of schism For the first Sir I presume you will grant that the separation against which you preached and now printed do suppose there was a union with that body from which you tell us we are now separated For how can there be a separation from that to which we were not united Now Sir I think by what you have said to remove the mighty stumbling-block as you call it pag. 359. of the Cross there will be found many thousands in England who were never admitted into your Church and if not admitted into it then not united to it as such a Church no members of your body how then can you charge them with this sin of separation from it Thus then Sir you speak of the Cross in Baptism p. 351. when the Minister uses these words We receive this child into the congregation of Christs flock and sign him with the sign of the Cross c. the Minister now speaks in the name of the Church We receive c. then follows as the solemn rite of admission and do sign him with the sign of the Cross All publick and solemn admissions into societies having some peculiar ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its Sacramental efficacy is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churches Thus you have interpreted the Cross Whether this will satisfie Mr. B. I leave it to him it doth not me the Imposers of that Ceremony in their Canons do not tell us that it is the Rite of admission into your Church but by this ceremony the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that died upon the Cross And that Book being of publick authority must carry it I had thought that in our Baptism we had been Dedicated to the Father Son and Spirit But it seems this is not enough you annex to his words Another sign to dedicate us to the service of Christ that died upon the Cross This Sir I hope you will prove to be agreeable to the word of God as you told us your Impositions are I am very ignorant of the Text that proves it and you have named none But this is not the thing I aim at it is your interpretation I mind and from it I gather that you and all others who charge us with separation from your Church must prove That we were received and that by this rite of admission the Cross into your Church which you call the Church of England This is clear from your own Interpretation and also from the page before 350 where you illustrate it from the Independent Churches Thus Suppose say you an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a member of an Independent Church and the ceremony of this admission to
in this course When nothing would do but they must come to Excommunication how wisely did they govern the Brethren to bring them to declare their consent * 2 Cor. 10.6 obedientially to their Elders for they deny the Government to be Democratical nor will I own the Fraternity to be the first subject of the Keys In the beginning it was not so as our Lord said in another case Mat. 19.8 and to the beginning we must go and your * Primit Government of Church p. 147. Thorndike speaks excellently to this why the Congregation ought to be concern'd in this Now when all were agreed how dreadful was the sentence what pale faces how many tears did it cause in the Congregation a solemn sight to behold the Church putting the person out of the Congregation Terrible as an army of banners Cant. 6 1◠I have often thought of the Text since After this how excellently did the Church walk towards an Excommunicate person to bring to Repentance And what rare effects have I known of this Ordinance without any Writs de Excommunicato capiendo alas these could never effect what I have known to the humbling of such a person And now Sir do you think that we who have seen these things can join with your Church where this Ordinance so majestical so terrible is so horribly profaned I pray Sir pardon me though I stand off from it But I pray Sir why do your Bishops excommunicate those who were never of your Church why do they not Excommunicate the French or Dutch True they live under your Laws but your Law is they must be admitted by the Cross and being Infants could not help it As to your Discourse about particular Congregations and Diocesan Churches it is not my purpose to meddle with it only I desire you to tell me why a Pastor of a single Congregation may not be as fit to govern that Congregation as your single Bishop to govern a thousand Congregations as it is with your Church where did the Apostles ordain but one single Pastor to a Church we have eight Churches recorded in the Epistles and the Acts but we read in them all several Elders to carry on Church-work As for Timothy and Titus being Bishops in our controverted sense enough hath been said about them Strange that we should have twelve Apostles beside Paul and Barnabas many Elders and several Evangelists and but two Bishops who were Evangelists too recorded in holy Writ to be the pattern for the succeeding Bishops when where and how those two were made Bishops we cannot find And for the large Diocesses so large that 't is impossible for a Bishop to perform the Duties the Lord requires of a Pastor to one quarter of the Diocess Pag. 203 The Petitioners for Reformation in King James's reign tell his Majesty That in Augustine's time there were in one Province under Carthage of the Catholick and Donatist Bishops above nine hundred Of the Catholicks part there were present 286 and absent 120 by reason of sickness and old age Episcopal Churches void 60 in all 466. Of the Donatists there were present 279 absent 120 Churches void 60 in all 459. These come near the matter make him but Episcopus praeses and as to Officers and Churches I may come to agree with you leaving my brethren to their judgments Several other things I took notice of in your Book that may easily be answered as the perplexing scruples you mention pag. 384 385. If we must baptize only by the Parents right that men must run into No none at all But Sir did you not forget your self very much p. 393. when you tell us the differences between the Popish Ceremonies and your Ceremonies viz. That yours are appointed only for decency and order Sir do not your Preface to your Ceremonies tell us another story viz. of a significacy in them to put us in mind of our duty 2. Of an aptness in them to stir up our dull minds to our duty Here is some efficacy in them to help to the performance of duty stirring up dull minds these do not much differ from the efficacy you say the Papists give to theirs for the purging away some sorts of sins I think both alike As for your French Letters who told le Moyne what he writes pag. 404. That we believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England I never heard such a word from any Dissenter nor ever had I such a thought Certainly none of our Bishops would write such a line to him So that this must be the figment of a French mans brain which we abhor for the story he writes p. 409. of a Nonconformist that he heard preach I could tell him a story of one of our late Bishops ten times worse but the Press shall not know it but you shall Sir I have given you a few of my thoughts reading over your Book while my Papers were in the Press which have lain by me several years and must tell you I am not yet satisfied with the title of your Book viz. the Vnreasonableness of Separation c. To your Prayer in the end of your Preface I heartily say Amen Amen SIR I am your Servant to love and honour You G. F. THE QUESTIONS Between the CONFORMIST AND Nonconformist Truly stated and briefly discussed IT was not without the ordering of Divine Providence that the day which the Imitators of the Heathens 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 did consecrate to their St. Bartholomew should be the day on which the blood of so many thousand Protestants was poured out in France and the day also on which so many hundreds of Gospel-Ministers to whom Christ had given both will and skill for his work success in his work were turned out of his work in England The crime both there and here which they found was the same the Princes found against Daniel in the Law of his God A day of gladness it was to many but not to all upon the same ground One Conformist and a man of note tells a Captain under his Majesty since his Return that he was glad so many Ministers refused to conform the Captain would know his reason he gives it thus Had all Ministers conformed people would have thought there was nothing in Religion only a thing to talk of in the Pulpit and serve a State-design for these Ministers will turn any way the State turn But by their giving up their livings and exposing themselves and families to outward evils rather than they would conform to things imposed not agreeable as they apprehended to the Gospel they preached they have convinced men there is reality in Religion and given a check to Atheism This was the substance and to be sure he was not more glad than I was when the Captain told me his Discourse How zealous yet some have been to bring us over to Conformity the many Books published for it and against us have declared Some of
Therefore one Prelate but of ordinary mission commission and qualification that never converted one Church may be not one person in truth shall have power over many Elders and Congregations where he never Preached over so many that if he Preached every Lords-day he could not preach once in a year to them yea so many that if he Preached every day in the year he could not preach once in a year to them some Diocesses are so large This consequent from such an Antecedent my dull Intellect cannot reach I deny the Consequence What might be said I foresee and would have prevented it but I am in a Postscript and so can only touch things as I pass Arguments he fetches from three Topicks to prove the superiority of one single person over other Elders 1. From Reason p. 23. Though the Vniversal Church be built upon a Rock yet particular Churches are subject to Dilapidations c. Ergo. A. In matters belonging to the House of God I thought the will of him that built the House and is Lord over it should first have been consulted His will hath reason in it we are sure but for our reasons they will put no end to the debate for one thinks his reason is as good as another Quot capita tot sententiae It is Instituted worship we are upon depending upon the positive command of the Law giver But however I deny your consequence And that 1st Mr. Baxter Church-History gives sufficient proof From the woful experience the Church hath found of your Repairers these having been as great causes of the Dilapidations as any other That Bishops have been both great Schismaticks and Hereticks Bellarmine will tell you What woful work these have made in the Church of England in our time we do still remember but I will spare names let them alone in their graves Musculus not an English Nonconformist from the experience the Church had found of the mischiefs it suffered by these Repairers Musc loc Commun p. 195. sound out to prevent and heal Schism as Hierom tells us saith Had Hierom lived to these days to see how this counsel of setting up the Bishop above the Presbyter hath profited the Church he would have acknowledged it was not the counsel of the Holy Ghost to take away Schism as was pretended but the counsel of the Devil c. Thus he with much more he adds 2ly There are other means to repair without such Prelacy as experience hath proved in several Churches where Heresie and Schism have either been kept out or healed when crept in Profaneness suppressed better than ever it was in England by Prelacy 3ly That one Prelate is as subject to corruption in Doctrine and conversation as other Ministers and who shall repair him the Presbyters being inferior to him they must not be so sawcy that kind of Creature whom you call the Metropolitan is as subject to corruption as the other Prelate As to the proof you give p. 26 27. There is a greater probability of an union of judgments when all within a certain precinct lye under an obligation to be determined by the reason of one c. A. I thank you for this saith the now Pope Innocent this helps to strengthen my old worm-eaten Chair weak in the joints and ready to crack Heresie and Schism must be avoided in the Vniversal Church as well as in the Church in your Precinct but if the Bishops in your several Precincts differ in their Judgments about Heresie and Schism as they have done and will do now what more probable way for union of Judgments than to have them lye under an obligation to be determined by the reason of one and who should that one be but my self this is but the same reason that Bellarmine hath given for Pontifex Maximus 2ly In one Diocess are some hundreds of Elders all having the power of Jurisdiction ex aquo from Christ as the Learned Dr. Stillingfleet hath proved but however if this Doctor deny it among these there may be many as godly men of as solid reason and judgment as is this one Prelate yea it may be excel him in all and in years his Elder too yet all these must have their reasons and judgments subject to the determination of the reason of that one Prelate I shall not applaud him for a man of an accuminated Intellect that shall assert such an irrational Proposition 2. His second Topick is Gods Declaration for the perpetuity of Apostolical Government which was over other Elders and Congregations p. 28. Yea Sir this is of moment if you can carry it First Text Mat. 28.20 Teach baptize instruct all Nations to observe whatsoever was commanded them I pray add this And he commanded them to teach That one Prelate while the Church stands should have superior power over other Elders and Congregations then you do something Because you mention commands for Government name two or three Texts to stop the mouths of these Erastians But to the Text. It is not for nothing that our Lord while he mention Teaching Baptizing and under this the Lords Supper yet saith nothing of Government Surely he had a reason for it 2. I yield from the Apostles and other Elders Government recorded in the Scripture that Government belongs to the Eldership with the Erastians leave but from hence to infer that because the Apostles did exercise power over other Elders Ergo now one Prelate over other Elders I shall deny the Consequence For 1. you tell us p. 25. It 's true the Vnction whereby they were qualified for it was not of the vulgar composition But say I the Unction these Prelates have is but of the vulgar composition Hence to argue from extraordinary to ordinary is a kind of fallacy a kin to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 They that exercise Government over other Governours as all Elders are had need be in Wisdom Learning Holiness and fitness for Government as Saul among his brethren higher by head and shoulders so were the Apostles and Evangelists above those Elders over whom they exercised Authority We find no such things amongst the men of the vulgar Vnction 2. Those Elders as well as the people were the Aposties Converts these being but newly brought home to the Faith well may their Fathers have power over them and cause enough to visit them the case is not so here 3ly When the Apostles come to deal with the ordinary Elders there is no intimation left of any such power of one Prelate over the rest You tell us p. 45. that Timothy was Ordained Bishop of Ephesus about the 13th year of Claudius I hope you will not force it from 1 Tim. 1.3 As I besought thee to abide still at Ephesus He must have an illuminated Intellect indeed who can force the ordination of a Bishop out of these words Besides certainly had he been Bishop there Paul need not have besought him to be resident there but however sure I am he must be