in these yet they are not a sufficient cause to take up Arms and Rebel against the State and so it is in the Church Nothing can be a sufficient cause but where something is contrary to the Law of God is impos'd as a condition of Communion for if it be not impos'd on me I may still joyn in Communion without Sin and then I ought so to joyn and it is a sin not to joyn As if an impious Law were enacted in the State yet I ought not to Rebel for this only if it be impos'd on me I ought to refuse it and so it is in the Church There is no cause for Rebellion in the Church that is not as sufficient for Rebellion in the State You urge the Oath of a Church-Warden as a cause fâ—â— Schism But all that can be infer'd from thence is that those that scruple that Oath should not be Church-Wardens It is not impos'd as a condition upon any and there is the same reason to Rebel against the State for that Oath for it is injoyn'd by Law as to make a Schism for it in the Church I now come to the main Proof That is from Scripture You quote four Texts Stand fast therefore in the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set you Free and be not again intangled with the Yoke of Bondage 2. Be ye not the Servants of Men. Rom. 3.14 And the fourth is Colos 14. To the first I say The Yoke of Bondage was the Law of Moses to which the Jewish Converts did seek to oblige all Christians which was the occasion of the Council call'd at Jerusalem Acts 15. And the Liberty wherewith Christ hath set us free is from the Bondage of that Law Christian Liberty must not be understood to give every man Liberty to do what he pleaseth or to free men from the Lawful Commands of Superiors therefore no consequence can be drawn from this Text to warrant Schism upon this Account of our Ceremonies unless they be prov'd to be unlawful and secondly to be impos'd as Terms of Communion The second Text Be ye not the Servants of men of Literily taken will overthrow the Right of Masters over their Servants and in no sound sence will come to the Case in hand Rom. 14. Respects the Case of private Persons Judging one another in things left to their Liberty but not to oppose the Lawful Commands of Superiors especially so as to make a Schism upon that Account the hand Writing of ordinances mention'd Colos 2.14 Was the Curse of the Law due to us for Sin which Christ Nailed to his Cross as is plain from ver 13. and hath no Relation to that which we enquire after These are all the Scriptures you produce to justify separation on the Account of Ceremonies You object a neglect of Examination before the Sacrament but this is clear is no sufficient cause for Schism and it may be best amended without separation by admonishing of others and shewing them a good Example Our Rubrick requires it And therefore they are Nonconformists to our Church who do not practise it You say That sanctification by a Man 's own Free will Justification by a Man 's own Righteousness Salvation by his own good works is not bad Doctrine now I know not where you have heard it it is expresly contrary to our Articles and Homilies which all our Clergy subscribe and if any teach otherwise let them Answer for it They are therein Non-conformist because not conformable to the Doctrine of the Church and here can be no cause of Schism because no such Doctrine but the contrary is impos'd as a Term of Communion at least to the Clergy What you say of Parker Stillingsten Hales is nothing to our business They are but private Doctors and there can be no cause of Schism here Would you think that Baxters Life were a sufficient cause were there no other to make a separation from the Communion of which he was a Member You say The Church's Power to appoint Ceremonies was not in the Thirty Nine Articles What if it was or was not doth that make them unlawful Or is that a sufficient cause for Schism for remember that is our point Your Condemning private Baptism as unlawful to a child in danger of Death is a Vindication of the Preface to the Discourse of Baptism for which the Anthor hath been blamed as doing wrong to the Dissenters in suggesting that they laid not so much upon Baptism as we do But this is not our present Subject and I will not digress You say Christ did not appoint Baptism from the Jewish custom He certainly continued the custom which they had begun and if the custom had been finful and abominable as you say it is not to be imagined that he would have given that countenance to it instead of Reproving it You say Things of a civil nature common to others as well as Christians to other actions as well as Religious as Love Feasts Kiss of Charity may be done without Divine Appointment our Anti-Ceremonial men grant to all the World Answer That the Love Feasts and Kiss of Charity were used in Relious Worship is certain indeed Love and Feasting Kissing and Charity too are things of a Civil Nature in the Civil or common use of them but when they were appointed in Religious Worship they became of a Religious Nature All actions or things are of a civil or Religious Nature as they are used to a Religious or civil use As Musick in the Church or out of the Church are of the same nature as to it self but it receives a different denomination according to the different uses it is put to with the same Tongue we perform Religious Woship and at other times prophane God Now I would gladly know a reason why Musick or a Surplice might not be used in Religious Worship as well as Kissing or Feasting I beseech you to consider impartially and let us proceed upon Principles and Reasons and not upon Passion and Prejudice which blind the Eyes of wise Men. But put things to the utmost if any cannot overcome his Scruples against Musick for example Let him go to the Church where it is not used which are many in the Kingdom and however he may think it inconvenient unless he can prove it positively forbidden by Scripture or by necessary consequence here is no ground for Schism for that is our point The NONCON WHen I said The Pharisees and Papist in your sense were not Guilty you say Guilty of what I answer Of adding to Gods Law I thought plain tho of violating the Rules of Decency c. If the Ceremonies of the Pharisees were too many insignificant and burthensom and such are the Papists say you but who shall be judge How much stress is laid upon yours I have shewn Beyond the nature of the thing are words I understand not Mosaick Ceremonies were not changed in nature but in use neither is Baptism or the Lords Supper now else
you for your freedom and do not despise your Arguments which tho a common practise is no fair one I know not but that some Ceremonious Scots and English Men too now must be notorious Schismaticks on your Principles as well as mine Your Servant I hate vain Inventions but thy Law do I love says David Postscript IN the Administration of the two Great Ordinances no place is left for the Ministers Gifts not in Prayer to God and which is worse if worse can be not in Instructions to the People O Blessed Apostle when thou didst enumerate Ministerial Gifts to the Church of Corinth thou didst forget the Gift of Reading and the Church of England Give these Men a Common Prayer Book in one Hand and a Book of Homilies in the other they have enough This is done not only in Publick Churches but Private Houses Did the Jews read Prayers in the time of Christ The Pharisees Practice shews their Custom You cannot think they knew that unmanly as well as unscriptural word I Pray who reads Prayers to Day What Ancients did you attempt to Name that did this In what Countrey did they live Did they read Prayers in their Antilucana that Pliny telleth Trajan of I grant as you say your Prayers are moving Prayers for it is a hard matter to sit still and hear them and the most serious commonly leave them It seems to me a poor Plea for any one to say for such a Worship only it is lawful What if only the Lords Prayer was us'd in a Parish at the Lords Supper would you continue there and say it is lawful c. And not go to another place where done much better Are some few words enough of Plague Pestilence and Famine c I remember I have read when London Bridge was on Fire the Priest Pardon me Sir it was the Name Laud gave and blotted out the word Minister brought the Common Prayer Book and Read For all Women labouring with Child for all sick Persons and young Children c. An Old Woman cryed out Good Lord what is all this to London Bridge c. Do you call that a Prayer where a few words are read to God in a large History or spoken to Men when we Pray with our Hats on and a Cup in our hand at Home at Feasts in Coffee-Houses when we speak of the King Church or our Friends Using commonly in a conceived Prayer the same words for the King or Parliament c. Make it not a Form Is it â—â—â—â—ful or would it not be Phantastical to have Crowns on your Heads and Palms in your Hands as well as white Robes on your Backs You know how John saw Christ Rev. 1. What if you wore such a Girdle would it not be Phantastical Schism you now tell me was the Point you did Pursue I am sure you did not so at first I cannot Answer your thoughts but words Would you not Baptise Infants 〈◊〉 only the Adult if your Church so requir'd and say There is no plain positive Command to the contrary A doubtfull Conscience was much with Paul Is this sense Nothing can excuse our running in Schism but the imposing of what is plainly and positively a Sin Would it be Schism then as you call it Conformist THere are several Passages which do well deserve to be animadverted upon but I pass all to pursue our main point till that be settled and then we will proceed as you see cause For as to the Reason use and advantage of our Liturgy Ceremonies c. It is not time to come to that till we have first consider'd whether the imposing these be a sufficient cause for Schism because if it be not all the inconveniences improprieties which you objected were they granted will not excuse your separation from the Church or make your separation not to be a Schism In order to this I first set down the Power as I conceive the Church hath not Viz. To appoint means of Grace and by this I cut off most of the Popish Ceremonies 2. That the Church hath Power to appoint Ceremonies or Rights of an inferior order to this This you seem to deny and build upon the Command of not adding to or diminishing from the Law of God But to add to the Law of God is to add something as the Law of God which is not For if I add some Ceremony or Circumstance unless I pretend that it is the Law of God or a part of it it is no addition to the Law Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of Men this is an addition to Gods Law when I teach the Commandments of Men as Doctrines that is as Laws of God but to teach the Commandments of Men only as the Commandments of Men this is not teaching them as Doctrines and so no addition to the Law of God Thus for Example when we teach the use of a Surplice only as a Commandment of Men we add not to the Law But if you forbid a Surplice as a thing unlawful tho commanded by humane Laws then you teach this as a Doctrine and so you not we add to the Law of God For forbidding is as much a Law of God as injoyning Now then there are but too things to make our Ceremonies or Rights unlawful and consequently which can justify a separation on their Account 1. If they are forbidden in Scripture 2. If we teach them as Doctrines and Laws of God and seeing neither of these are the Case I see no third thing that can justify a separation upon this Account Let us keep close to this point till we have ended it Let us settle to our selves some Rule by which we must govern our selves in this important enquiry Now give me leave to take notice of some Passages in your Paper which relate to these For the other I pass by as I said at first You say that with us no Kneeling no Sacrament No Cross no Baptism Nay tho the Salvation of Infants dying without it be question'd yet run a Risque here rather than go without the Cross Good God say you What madness doth superstition lead Men to Now might I not justly return this Exclamation What will prejudice c. Make Men believe For in the Office of private Baptism which is particularly appointed for Children that are in danger of Death the Cross is not used And whoever useth it in private Baptism transgresseth the Rubrick and the Common Prayer which is a Demonstration that our Church doth not think the Cross necessary in Baptism or to be a part of it Yet you bring this as an Argument that she did think it necessary and so necessary as to Risque a Child dying without Baptism rather then go without the Cross As great a mistake is That of No Kneeling no Sacrament Every day it is given to Sick Persons without Kneeling and where there is any reasonable excuse it will not be exacted But let me ask you will you give it in your Church to
these had been a duty now and those then a Divine Stamp made those once and these now necessary which you say a Human command doth as you tell us I think you wrong the Church of Rome if you say That she maketh sprinkling with Holy-Water c. in your sense a part of Gods Worship and of Oral Tradition from Christ or the Apostles Neither doth it appear the Pharisees thought washing of Hands when they came from Market and other Ceremonius parts of Moses's Law conveyed by Oral Traditson prove it if you can Did Christ indeed confirm Ceremonies prefer'd to Gods Law These things ought ye to have done what things washing of Hands c. No in vain do ye worship me In Tything Mint we deny not the Magistrates power in Tything Ministers maintenance is a civil thing observe a great contradicton of yours now Mans Law said to be Gods Law Christ respected them Whereas you tell me so often of Schism I have desired you to tell me what Church it is I am a Schismatick from Is it the Rebellious Perjured King Dethroning Church of England as some call her Or the seditious Conventicles of Popishly affected Jacobites that others talk of till then I am not bound to say more of Schism I thought according to some nothing could warrant taking up Arms against a King and then according to you nothing could warrant a Separation which you always call Schism from a Church There is no cause for Schism in the Church say you that is not as sufficient for Rebellion in the State Is not your Church then think you a Schismatical Church from the Mother Church of Rome That the Church Wardens Oath is injoyned as you say by Law is denied The Bishop of Bristol 20 Years since was cast here Carleton The refusers of that Oath have been Excommunicated and required to get others to serve in their place which is unlawful for Reasons given in my last to you 5 Gal. 1. I will not say your Answer or Argument was anticipated before you wrote it lest It should displease sure you cannot think I thought when Paul says Be ye not the Servants of Men Men should not serve their Masters You tell me not what is your sound Sense of the words nor the Reasons why you take not my Sense to be so God left men 14 Rom. to their liberty and no man can deny it them The Magistrate is forbidden imposing unnecessary things on the weak Receive ye him saith Paul Reject him saith your Church 7 ver No man liveth to himself 10 Who art thou that settest at naught thy brother 22. Hast thou faith have it to thy self before God Chap. We that are strong ought to bear with the infirmities of the weak Yes say some if the Magistrate doth nor forbid it O Paul or rather O Jesus thou shall be Obeyed unless our Church commands us otherwise VVho regards these Precepts yet they scrupled things lawful we unlawful 5 Col. 14.10 11 12 16. Read and you will read your fallacy A bene conjunctis mala diviso Mens Sins and old Ceremonies were both nail'd to Christ's Cross Did I make every thing I wrote of a sufficient cause for Schism especially simply by it self that this is so often all the answer I can get This is no cause for Schism Are they all Non-conformists as you say That examine not Communicants Then I think they are all Non-Conformists now from the greatest to the least VVell I see the Noncons have gotten company more than a good many by what names or titles soever they are dignified or distinguisht whether the most Reverend the Arch Bishops the right Reverend the Bishops or all inferior Priests and D s. I am glad you profess your self to be no Arminian and grant such Subscribers to the 39 Articles and Book of Homilies Noncons and I say perfidious ones you ask me where heard I I answer The last Sermon I ever heard in the Church of England save one about 2 years since Three-Articles were Preacht against by no mean Man and I would prove upon him what you say that he was a Non-conformist and ought to be Excommunicated for that Sermon VVhat I wrote against Private Baptism confirms not the charge because I told you the practise of other Noncons contrary to mine and I doubt not many Church Men are of my mind in this thing not yours Because I only object where such a Baptism may hasten a childs death And can you or will you say otherwise You say the same of Jewish Baptisms which you long since did and take no notice of my reply therefore I am not bound to take notice any more of that Subject For Kissing and Feasting I take them not as Religious Acts if you do prove them so only all things we do must tend to the Glory of God in eating and drinking and whatever we do I remember not that in my Last I wrote any thing of Musick if I did then what you say of it was pertinent to the occasion In short I think the Old Church of England is gone out of sight for Doctrine Discipline and Manners You know it was a great Question in the Schools at Athens whether when all the Old Planks were gone out of Theseus his Ship one gone after another it might still be said here is Theseus his Ship I know not how far they were agreed If it please you to give me your Opinion about this we may be the sooner agreed here This present Church which some Jacobites call a Schismatical Church her Priests Jeroboams Priests such as are not to be Communicated with at the Lords Table hath been a Factor for Rome is full of Perjuries Perfidious Baptisms broken Prayers Foolish sinful Ceremonies she is bloody in her Principles and once practice too and therefore I think separation from her is no Schism but a Duty To the Baxterians Brethren WHether you have not very much contributed to the growth of Crispianism is humbly offered to your consideration as they by their foolish unsound Oppositions of you have added to your number As not one false Charge no nor mistake was ever proved on me in my Vindiciae so I hope will no such thing or can no such thing be proved on me in this Book I once so valued your Master that I had his Picture in my Bed-Chamber and for a considerable time after I awoke in the Morning lookt on it with delight I never doubted then nor since but that he deserved the name of a great Man tho think he knew too many things to know any thing well or as other greater Men then be aid He had I think been a wiser Man had he not had so much Wiâ— I am glad that notwithstanding your Masters Doctrin of Non Resistance nothing is farther from Jacobitism than you and that His Most Sacred Majesty hath not more Loyal Subjects in the three Kingdoms then you are and that your Meetings are valued by you