to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before
very Constitution of a Church in which we differ from them as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did of whom he saith that they held That nothing could justifie Separation from the Church but such corruptions which overthrow the Being of it And he saith The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation lay in this and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church For proving of this he sheweth That the Separatists thought nothing could justifie their Separation but that which nullified the Church and it is no wonder for they minded nothing but an active Separation and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed It is true they mention the Service as one of their Pleas for Separation but not barely as unlawful to be used but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded For what he addeth p. 35 c. that the Non-conformists when they would disprove the Separation only proved the Church of England to be a True Church It is no wonder that they minded no more seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause But Did they ever teach that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful which is the one half of the Controversie that we now manage He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists p. 36. at the end That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this without giving the least advantage against our Cause for we do not separate our selves but the Door is shut against us by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies which we cannot use without Sin and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these Again We do not continually separate from the Church but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out the Separatists could say neither of these That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is is evident for they were men of so much Sence and Reason as that they could not imagine it impossible that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church because of sinful Terms of Communion required They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus to refrain from the Communion of that Church if that Communion were denied to that Member unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans or at least consent to the tolerating of it Such is our Case we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church unless we will approve by our practice the Ceremonies which we judge sinful with what Face can they blame us for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them 1 Sam. 26. 19. They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord saying go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile because he waited not on the Temple Service And yet the Necessity that he was under of abstaining from it was not so great as ours That was Bodily Hazard ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God. Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted as any that readeth and understandeth them may perceive What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson and Ball against Can is nothing against us to wit That the Church of England is a true Church From p. 39. He sheweth that Non-conformists held That the Corruptions of the Church of England were not such as did over-throw the Being and Constitution of it which we willingly yield to What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists p. 40 41. about Forms of Prayer and the English Liturgy shall be examined in its due place if the Lord permit I know some Non-conformists have had and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have But as now there are so of old there were others that could not comply with it What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian if he thought them Lawful to be used which is our Question I know not why he should be reckoned a Non-conformist But indeed there is nothing of that in what the Dr. Citeth p. 41 42. What he bringeth p. 42 43 44 45 46 47. out of several Non-conformists to shew that the Ministry Discipline and Hierarchy of the Church of England is not Antichristian nor the Church-Antichrist we are not concerned to disprove and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing it being wholly beside the question Some things he maketh them say that deserve a little Animadversion but I will not now Digress to take notice of them Sect. 12. He proceedeth Sect. 12. To give Accompt of the Independent Separation and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation I confess there is a present Separation that these Reasons do hold against for that same Separation doth still continue But he doth not prove his point unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude that we should use the Ceremonies rather than forbear Church-Communion with the Prelatists But his Reasons for what he saith we shall attend in their course What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists by the breaking of Brown's Church in Midleborough and his jugling in the Matters of God I know not This long Story hath either no design which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts or an ill design which I am loth to impute to one of his Worth. However it be we disclaim all concern in it There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others as well as among Non-conformists That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Publick Assemblies a Cursed Convenâ—icâ—e it may be there was cause if Brown was such a bad Man as the Dr. maketh him But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissentions that followed to the Judgment of God on them this we are no way concerned to Apologize for Their way was Evil and it did not prosper If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil let him pass what Judgment he will on what befalleth us but till then Sobriety in judging is becoming No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them because of the Confusions and Ruin that followed in Germany on the Reformation We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us but we are not convinced that the Things in Controversy are to be
are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
Proximate Right that one hath and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic nunc to join with and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church is that which doth actually make him a Member of it And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission whether it be the Dr's Crossing or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end for these are but the external declarative Signs not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation and therefore these are but the Tokens not the Foundation of Actual Membership But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned is ones being so Circumstantiated that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances here rather than elsewhere which is determined by his place of residence not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine but a Civil Constitution yet it hath its use for shunning confusion And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted is his being a Visible Believer Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions and his right may also be superseded and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances by his contradicting his profession by Heresie or Scandal Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists willful Deserters of the Church Atheists c. So every one that liveth in a Parish is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion which that Church doth sinfully require To clear this a little further consider that to make Actually and Compleatly a Member of a particular Church beside his residence there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person and that either Explicite or Implicite The Implicite consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person Word Sacraments Discipline The Implicite consent of the Person lyeth in ordinary using of or submission to these Now where the Church is willing and the Person is not and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause the Person may be charged with sinful Separation where the Person is willing but the Church is not And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal or by refusal unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions the Person is no Separatist but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation In this last case which is our case the Person is a Member affectu but not effectu This is to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand we are Members of the Church of England affectu i. e. Being by providence fixed in England where Christ's Truth is professed and his Ordinances administred we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under to join in the Ordinances without submitting to sinful Terms And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinanâ—es we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies for the present distress where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administred and there we are effectu Members where we thus ordinarily meet And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu for we declare a readiâ—ess whenever these unlawful barrs from Communion with her shall be removed that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast If after all this the Dr. or his Party will charge us as he doth with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles and Prevarication in manageing of them we must bear that injustice Sect. 10. He dealeth p. 105 106 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful I have â—o fully set down my opinion in this and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things tho' many of them may word them better that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth I will not defend He taketh up part of p. 107 108 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies to be Members of the Church nor excuse them from Separation I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs For it is not Occasional Communion alone but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her and so maketh us Members so far as we can and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholick principles This he highly derideth and laboriously refuseth p. 110 111 112 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch It is not their saith he Obligation to Peace and Vnity with the Church as Members of it that moveth but a certain Romantick fancy of Catholick Vnity Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations And therefore by the fault of the Imposers we have no other way to shew our owning the Church as a true Church but this Occasional Communion Let him call it a Romantick Fancy or what he will we separate from no true Church and much less frâ—m that where we live but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again he argueth from a supposition That if we were at Jerusalem where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and one should ask us what Church we were Members of If we should Answer we are fixed Members of no Church but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches Would they take such a Man for a Christian Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer as he feigneth for us for his own advantage I should in that case join my self to the purest Church that I could there meet with being at Liberty to choose and not prelimitted by my habitation if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion And then should Answer to the Question I am here free to join with you or any tolerable Church but do Actually join with you as the purest during my abode here When I
the Magistrate to protect those that did break off from them but to suppress them who should have done so and would not If he will not own this he doth more to over-throw the Reformation than all that he can charge Non-conformists with can amount to We are far from questioning the Magistrates Power over Ministers to inflict civil Punishments on them if he do it on good Grounds he is approved of God if otherwise he must answer to him for it But our Magistrates do not own any power of inflicting Church-censures by themselves whatever some Flatters do on their behalf The Objection from the Old Non-conformists I have answered above By what hath been said it will appear whether he saith truly p. 137. That not one word of our Plea but might equally serve the Papists Sect. 18. What followeth p. 137 138 and 139 of the Peoples Power of chusing their Pastors and the Nullity of their Title to that Charge without the Peoples Consentt he Dr. it seems thinks that Recitasse is Refutasse for he saith no more to disprove it but Asserteth That it layeth a Foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Separations which we deny And enough I have said above to evince the contrary He maketh another of our Grounds of Separation to be the Persecution of the Prelatists and their having a Hand in silencing of Ministers This we disown Indeed their Persecution for our not submitting to their Impositions is a Barr by which we are forcibly kept out of the Church but it is not the motive that determineth us to leave the Church we are willing to wait on Gods Ordinances even Administred by them that persecute us if they will suffer us to do it on sinless Terms And if Mr. B. whom he only citeth in this matter mean any thing else I cannot answer for him SECT III. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church AFter Examination of other Pleas for Non-conformity the Dr. cometh Sect. 13. to examine that which he confesseth to be the most colourable Plea that hath yet been used to wit their imposing of unlawful Terms of Communion with them And this I look on as not only the most colourable Plea but is the causa sine quo non that without which no Separation can be made from a True Church which is sound in the Faith without Sin and as the very Foundation of that Cause that I now plead and if the Dr. can beat us out of this Hold we shall become his willing Proselites Let us hear then how he taketh this Plea from us Sect. 2. His first assault is by a distinction which is really true but very ill managed tho' by amost Learned hand but the Dr. being Master of so much Learning as few men are doth I suppose sometimes make him consider less what he writeth than they find need to do who move in an inferiour Orb. His distinction is between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fansied to be so through Prejudice and wilful Ignorance or Error of Conscience That there are some Terms of Communion with a Church really sinful and others that are not so tho' they be fansied by some to be so I think none ever doubted and therefore the Dr. might have better imployed his pains to say nothing of his Ink and Paper that he hath taken to prove this by a multitude of instances And I grant that when the sinfulness of the Terms is only fansied the Sin of Schism that followeth on that apprehension lieth not on the Imposers but on those that separate Only I must add an Exception of a Case in which it may lie on both that is when the thing imposed is unnecessary and is made a ground of Separation by the mistake of persons otherwise orthodox and sober and who pretend to no other cause of Separation If the Imposers will not yield in that case that is the wiser to the more wilful they shew not that moderation nor love to Peace that they should If the Quakers could be gained by forbearing preaching by an Hour-glass the Dr's instance I would think it hard to lose them for that for whom Christ lost his Life Sect. 3. As the Dr. manageth this distinction it is hard to tell what to make of it for he confoundeth two things that are most distinct yea different to wit Terms of Communion plainly sinful and Terms of Communion in themselves sinful And in the other Lemma of the distinct on he hath set nothing in opposition to plainly for fansied to be sinful through Prejudice wilful Ignorance Error of Conscience are all opposite to those that are sinful in themselves He should then have told us if Terms of Communion imposed be sinful in themselves but not plainly but only obscurely so what censure he would pass on them that could not comply with them also what degree of plainness he would require about the sinfulness of imposed Terms of Communion that it might be lawful to Separate rather than yield to them My opinion is that if Terms of Communion be imposed that are in themselves and really sinful and if the sinfulness of them can be known by diligent searching of the Scripture and depending upon God for Light and Guidance tho' there be not such plainness as the Dr. had above called glaring Evidence that all the world may see they that are consciencious ought to withdraw from any Church whatsoever rather than submit to those Terms There is an Ambiguity in the Term that he useth In themselves sinful for I know that it is their usual Plea for the Ceremonies the imposed Terms of Communion now under debate that they are things in themselves indifferent This may either be understood that they are in their general nature such which we grant Habits and Postures and Gestures importing neither good nor evil as such Or as considered under the circumstances that they are cloathed with as they fall under our debate and so we think them sinful Now the Dr. should have told us whether he meaneth of Terms of Communion that are things imposed which are really evil under the circumstances with which they are imposed or Terms of Communion which are things in their general nature evil We think the sinfulness of Terms of Communion even in the former and not only in the latter sence may warrant our withdrawing Sect. 4. He telleth us That the Magistrate of Church may lawfully determine and impose Time and Place and such-like circumstances of Worship which we grant tho' we think it inconvenient to be rigorous in these Impositions or too frequent and universal in them but about these our Question is not conversant Therefore if any Separate from these Impositions he saith the Sin of Separation is on their part This we do not deny We also grant his Hypothetick Proposition that followeth to wit If other things be as much in the Magistrate or Church's Power they sin who separate because of
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
A Rational Defence OF Non-conformity WHEREIN THE Practice of NON CONFORMISTS IS Vindicated from Promoting Popery and Ruining the CHURCH imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of Separation ALSO His Arguments from the Principles and Way of the Reformers and first Dissenters are Answered And the Case of the present Separation truly stated and the blame of it laid where it ought to be And the way to Union among Protestants is pointed at By GILBERT RULE Minister of the Gospel Ezek. XLIII 10 11. Thou Son of Man shew the House to the House of Israel that they may be ashamed of their Iniquities and let them measure the pattern c. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the House and the fashion thereof c. LONDON Printed for Iohn Salusbury at the Rising Sun near the Royal-Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXIX THE PREFACE THE fierce Contentions of this Age about the Mint and Annise and Cummin of Religion I mean Religious Ceremonies that men have devised and imposed hath in a great measure hindered people from minding with that application that becometh the weightier things of the Law to wit the love of God and of our Neighbour and due regard to the promoting of true holiness and the Salvation of mens Souls the heavy Sufferings of many in England and in Scotland for not complying with such things as their imposing Task-masters did not so much as pretend to give Scripture warrant for are too notorious to be denied and too smarting to be forgotten How many thousands have been put on this sad Dilemma either to wound their Consciences or to be destroyed by taking away their Estates Liberties Livelihood and life it self But now the Lord in his infinite wisdom and tender mercy to an undeserving generation having by some late Revolutions first broken the Yoak of the Oppressors and made them for some time taste a little of the Cup that they had made their brethren drink deeply of and then gratiously and wonderfully delivered both contending parties from that utter ruine that was manifestly impending and made us like them that Dream'd and done exceeding abundantly for us above what we could think out done our faith as was foretold Luk. 18. 8. He hath by this surprising providence laid an Obligation on all Protestants and they who are such in earnest will mind it to turn to the Lord from every evil way that hath been in their heart or hand and particularly to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace to endeavour to speak and do the same things and where that cannot be attained through want of light and other sinful disorders of the Soul not easily nor soon removed without that pouring out of the Spirit from on high promised Isa. 33. 15. and else where which we should daily and earnestly pray and wait for To bear with one another in Love. They who know no other way to Unity but Uniformity will for ever miss of their design unless either all men were perfect in knowledge and wholly freed from irregular passions or Conscience were wholly laid to sleep and its use banished out of the World. Toward this blessed end peace among Protestants sober reasoning between Dissenting Parties may have some usefulness even Eristick Writings may prove Irenick if managed and read with that Spirit that becometh the gospel that is with due love to truth and peace and if I did not judge this book to be of that tendency I should never consent that it should see the light The Apostle giveth us two excellent directions for attaining this end Phil. 3. 16. beside the duty of forbearing one another till the Lord clear mistakes to them who are out of the way which he doth more than insinuate ver 15. but alas even about these ways to peace we contend as will appear in this Treatise Yet in my opinion the Apostle doth there clearly hold forth that there is a rule to which all are obliged to conform their actions and principles and particularly Church Administrations Let us walk by the same rule In all reason this rule must be Divine in that it is here generally injoyned to be minded and that by all Christians Is it imaginable that the Apostle intendeth to oblige all the Churches to take a rule of mans making for directing them how they shall please God Besides Church or humane Canons never were or are like to be the same in all Churches nor indeed can they of the things that are left to the Church to order at her discretion that which is fit in one place may be most unfit in another Wherefore if the Apostle had aimed at these he would have spoken of Rules not a rule We have then cause to think that the way to Church peace is to take the Word of God for the rule by which all the affairs of his House should be ordered If we would enjoyn nothing peculiar to Religion to be observed but what is warranted there And would not be too busie in making Canons for determining these things that are Extrinsick to Religion its Rites common to it with other solemn actions further than necessity requireth and in these determinations keep within the bounds of the general directions of the Word of God If we would do all things in the Church decently and in order and then make nothing such by our Will and Authority but enjoyn the Observation of these things that Scripture hath declared to be such or nature and civil custom hath made such If we would content our selves with that decency and order that was in the Apostolick Church Our Controversie would soon be at an end It is true even where Scripture is taken for the rule there might be some different apprehensions about the meaning of this rule what it enjoyneth but they who sincerely seek the mind of God in his words and depend on him for the light of his Spirit readily will either find what they seek or will soberly and peaceably differ from their brethren But when this rule is laid aside and mans wisdom must injoyn what is fit in God's Worship even though they be Learned Wise and Holy men and in authority in the Church yet not infallibly guided and much more when any of these Qualities are wanting there can hardly he an end of controversie it will be hard to set bounds to their multiplicity of which the Popish Church is a fatal Witness and hard to bring them to an end by composing them unless blind obedience be asserted at least as to some things And how many things these shall be who knoweth The other Direction that the Apostle giveth in that place is let us mind the same things Vnity in design is very conducive to Vnity in Heart and Practice When all have one end before them they will the more readily fall into the same way leading to that end as when many are travelling to the
a mind to expose the present Non-conformists as far degenerate from their Ancestors in the same Profession But of this more in its due place Sect. 3. He complaineth p. 2. of his own hard Usage on the like Occasion His Sermon entituled The Mischief of Separation was indeed solidly refuted by several Non-conformists and in that sence his Sermon was hardly used but I never heard before that hard Arguments were counted hard Vsage from an Adversary and if Bishop Jewel had no harder Usage for his Sermon there was no need of this Complaint unless it were to make his own hard Fate the more conspicuous by so venerable a Parallel This Reverend Author should consider That tho' we owe and give all due deference to the Memory of Bishop Jewel and to the Worth of Dr. Stillingfleet for their Labours in Defence of Protestantism yet it is neither Ingratitude nor Incivility in us to defend the purity of Gospel-Worship Worship against their Assaults We honour them but retain our Liberty of dissenting from them and of owning our Dissent when they mistake and are out of the way We call no man Rabbi having one Master CHRIST whose written Word we make the Rule of our Faith and Worship But one great part of the Doctor 's hard Vsage lieth in this That it hath been maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that he was put on that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise Persecution I confess Malice to suggest Evil and over-easiness to believe it is a thing too common among Dissenting Parties the Lord heal these Distempers on both hands but the particular Ground of this Charge on his Antagonists should have been mentioned If any have suspected that he was put on the Work if the work be good that doth extenuate the fault of such Suspicion I know no Evil in following either the Advice or Command of others to do our Duty So that hither to there is no Ground for the heavy Charge of Malice and malign Credulousness If any have judged his Design that is not fair dealing such Secrets are to be left to the Judgment of him who knoweth the Hearts But tho' I have a great deal of Charity in reference to the Intentio Operantis yet it is not so easie to pass a favourable Judgment on the Intentio Operis but he endeavoureth afterward his Vindication in this where I shall attend him Sect. 4. His professed Design in preaching that Sermon was only his just apprehension That the Destruction of the Church of England under a pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the likeliest Means to bring it Popery in Here he supposeth if I understand what he saith that the Protestant Dissenters aim at the destruction of the Church of England or at least that Non-conformity tendeth to destroy it than which no imagination can be more groundless nor can I conceive what should give cause to such a thought unless it be an extravagant Idea that some men frame to themselves of the Church of England as if her Essence consisted in the Ceremonies and the removing of these were the destruction of the Church We who Dissent from that which they call the Church of England are far from such low and dishonourable thoughts of Her we look on her as a Reformed part of the Church of God professing the Protestant Religion in opposition to the Errours of Popery but mixing this True Religion with some humane Ceremonies and therefore we think that opposing of these Ceremonies is so far from tending to the Destruction of the Church that it conduceth much to reforming of Her But suppose the Ceremonies were good and lawful things it is still a strange Notion and inconsistent with the Sentiments concerning them that our Brethren do profess that they are indifferent things and of no necessity If they be so what hazard is there of the destruction of the Church from their being laid aside If the Non-conformists had their wish it would inferr no other Alteration in the Church but the removal of such Accidents which the A betters of them do say That possunt adesse vel abesse sine subjecti interitu such Incoherences would not have been expected from so Learned a Pen. Sect. 5. It is also unfairly to say no worse hinted That Non-conformists Zeal against Popery is but pretended and that the real Design is to destroy the Church of England we can clear our selves of both before a higher Bar and therefore lay little weight on such Suggestions neither do we meerly dislike the Ceremonies because they are Popish he knoweth that we have other Arguments against them I hope Non-conformists shew their Zeal against Popery in other things Nor do we desire the Destruction of the Church that these Ceremonies may fall to the Ground but the removing of the Ceremonies that the Church may be more acceptable to him who can make her stand in despight of the Gates of Hell. If he charge us with the Church's Ruin because our Divisions about the Ceremonies may tend to it For answer Let it be considered who giveth culpably the Rise to these Divisions Whether they who forbear the Ceremonies because Sinful or they who do violently impose them tho' Indifferent in their Apprehension But this will afterwards fall to be further discoursed I deny not that Papists design the Ruin of the Church of England but not as Ceremonious but as Protestant they do not design to destroy Her by removing what the Non-conformists scruple but by taking away what they agree with Her in And therefore there is no Cause to think that the removing of the Ceremonies which Non-conformists desire though under a pretence of Zeal against Popery or under whatever other pretence should be one of the likeliest means to bring it in which our Author feareth Sect. 6. The Learned Dr. hath caught this Notion That Non-conformists by their Zeal against Popery are like to be Instruments of bringing it in and he seemeth to be very fond of this fine Conceit runneth away with it at a great rate is confirmed in it from the proceedings of Papists p. 2. starteth a Paradox p. 3. As it seemeth to unthinking People like the Non-conformists that when Papists 〈◊〉 appear no longer in that Work others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry it on for them and these unthinking people are carried away with meer no se and pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most passion and with least understanding against is and more to this purpose One may think it little Glory for the highly Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to labour in refuting such a contemptible Adversary as he here representeth But their Wisdom and Learning and Reasons for what they hold will I hope find more Equitable and less Supercilious Judges in the world neither will Hectoring stop their Mouths though they are ready to be silent to plain
Sect. 10. Yea the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. foretelling the Antichristian Apostacy v. 3. telleth us That that Mystery of iniquity did then work v. 7. This Allegation the learned Dr. putteth off with a Scoff p. 17. but we must not therefore part with it It is evident that there was then a tendency among some of the Members of the Christian Church to several of these Evils which being grown up to Maturity of Wickedness Antichristianism was afterwards made up not to speak of the gross Heresies that then were and others that were foretold Act. 20. 29 30. The Ambition of Diotrephes was a fermenting toward Lordly Prelacy 3 Joh. ver 9. So was the Idolizing of some Ministers among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3. 4. So the turning aside to the Jewish Ceremonies a carnal gawdy sort of Religion not contented with the simplicity of Gospel-Worship for which the Galatians are reproved Gal. 4. 9. The worshipping of Angels voluntary Humility subjection to Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Will-Worship Col. 2. 18. Forbidding of Meats and Marriage 1 Tim. 4. 3. and in a word the turning the Spiritual Religion of GOD into a Carnal outward Shew All these I say was a working toward the vile Superstitions that afterward grew up under the Antichristian Apostasy of which our Ceremonies are some Remains Now if there was such a secret working of such Evils in that time is it any wonder that some unallowable practices should be in the Church soon after the Apostles and be little taken notice of Sect. 11. And this is yet less to be wondred at if we consider the defects and uncertainty of the History of the Church in Times next after the Apostles as it was in the first Times of the Church before the Law which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dies inanitatis because of the want of the Light of History It was little better with the Christian Church at first We have very little distinct account of her Order and what we have is but in some things not so full as to enable us to pass a Judgment with Confidence of all their Practices in Church-Administrations It is no good Argument there is no mention of Dissent from or Non-conformity to the Church-practices of the First Times â—rgo there was none especially considering that the Writers of those Times who were glorious Lights yet Men and subject to mistakes and passions would not readily give account of what might make against their own practices And it can be made appear that the best of the Church Guides after the Apostles were in mistakes greater than what we now scruple at But the early Degeneracy of the Christian Church which our Author thinks it so absurd to imagine is witnessed by the most ancient History and nearest to these Times Eusebius lib. 3. c. 29. relating out of Egesippus the Martyrdom of Simon Son of Cleopas second Bishop of Jerusalem who had seen the Lord and was his Cousin Germain he addeth that After that the Sacred Company of the Apostles were worn out the Church having before been a pure Viâ—gin the Conspiracy of detestable Errors through Deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine took rooting c. If Heresie so soon got head what Absurdity is it to think that lesser Evils might early prevail This may be also proved in reference to the Rites used in the Church how early there was a degeneracy in these out of Irenaeus who lived in the second Century Epist. ad Victor Episc. Rom. Quae varietas observantiae pascatis jejuniorum non 〈◊〉 primum neque nostris temporibus caepit sed multo aute nos ut opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum decidere Where it is evident that Irenaeus imputeth such negligence and unskilfulness even to the First Age and nearest to the Apostles if not in the days of some of them as made them fall from Christs Institution in some things The consideration of all which maketh me wonder at the Confidence of the learned Author who saith that So sudden and insensible a Change of the Church is so incredible that they that think it could be may on the same Grounds believe that other parts of Popery did as soon prevail That this Change did soon prevail we believe not but that it might we see no Absurdity in it and for other parts of Popery we can tell when most of them begun and therefore are not obliged from the Antiquity of one part of it to acknowledge the same of another neither is there any Inconveniency in asserting that these Mistakes crept in insensibly Seeing the Apostle speaketh of them as a Mystery that was long working before it came above-board What he saith of humane Policies keeping long to their first Institution maketh little to his purpose both because the contrary is most frequently observed they often degenerate and that unobserved by the Vulgar through the Cunning of Statesmen and because corrupt Nature is not so apt to deviate from Humane Constitutions as from those that are Divine Few Politick Frames have been so often and quickly and easily changed as the Religious Worship of the Jews was in the time of the Judges and Kings I hope by this time it will appear that the Principles of the Church's Enemies so he falsly calleth the Non-conformists who are no Enemies to the Church but to her humane Ceremonies bringeth no such mighty prejudice on the Cause of the Reformation as he with confidence inferreth from what he had discoursed for we neither own such Antiquity in the Ceremonies nor if we did would that inferr the Antiquity of Popery in its grosser parts Sect. 12. He again chargeth his Adversaries that They must forgo the Testimony of Antiquity and that by so doing they run into insuperable Difficulties in dealing with the Papists which his Principles do lead through for they can justly charge Popery as Innovation And to that purpose citeth Bishop Sanderson p. 6. In answer to him and the Bishop too We say 1. That we do not forgo the Testimony of Antiquity though we do not Idolize it as some do we will not be concludâ—d by it against Scripture and not often without Scripture but take its help to search into the Mind of God revealed in His Word It s greatest Admirers must needs forgo it sometimes both Papists and Prelatists and the ancient Authors themselves do not seldom disown all Authority in them or any men to determine in the Controversies of Religion But I shall not digress into this Debate What Weight is to be laid on Antiquity it is enough at present that we deny and our Adversaries have not proved nor shall they ever be able to prove that Bishops and Ceremonies are so ancient as they affirm them to be what Instances he intendeth or can give from his present Adversaries the Non-conformists that they
to Primitive Institution To give some Instances How many Reformations do we read of in the Jewish Church which no doubt were approved of God and rejoiced in by Good Men in so far as they were a casting off of false Gods and a worshipping of Jehovâ—h and yet had this nigrum Theta set on them by the Spirit of God that the high plâ—ces still remained and the People still Sacrificed in them yet only to Jehovah This is noted even of Sâ—lomâ—n 1 Kin. 3. 2 3. and it 's like it was one of his first Steps of Degeneracy tho' the want of a Temple might seem to have excused it yet it is noted as a Fault as Pisâ—aâ—â—r observeth and the Particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 attamen only importeth no less It is also noted of Manesseth in his last and best daies 2 Chron. 33. 17. and of Azariah 2 King. 15. 5. and of Jotham 2 King. 15. 35. and of many others which need not be mentioned Now is it imaginable that none of the Godly in Judah were dissatisfied with this Depraâ—atiâ—n of God's VVorship nor scrupled to leave the Temple and to go to the high places to worship and if there were any such Might not all this be applied to them Was it for the Honour of the Reformation Was that the way to preserve the Worship of Jehovah Mast Reformers be charged with a wrong Way of Worship If this had been an insigâ—ificant Declamation against them so is it now against us To come nearer home Do not all the soundest Protestants rejoice in the Lutheran Reformation as to the main and yet blame it in some things Were not all English Protestants glad of what King Hen. 8. did against the Pope and in some other points of Religion and yet they thought not fit so to applaud that Setlement as to look after no further Reformation Why then should it be thought in us a disgracing of the Reformation that we desire some things to be still mended Sect. 17. We thank him for his Charity that he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuites but misregard his Saying That we do their Work a groundless and unproved Assertion I wish there were no Ground for Recrimination which I shall forbear If his Forty Years Meditation have enabled him to prove the present Episcopacy agreeable to the Institution of Christ and to the best Churches we must yield the Cause but we intend to hear his Proofs first It is a needless Question that he asketh Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Setlen â—ut Seeing he knoweth that we blame the first Setlement eatenus tho' we applaud it in the main and what he cited out of Dr. Taylor the Martyr p. 11. saith no more but that some Holy Men discovered the Evil of Popery and laid down their Lives in opposition to it but had not yet come to see the Evil of some of the Appurtenances of Popery Dr. Taylor and others rejoiced to see God worshipped in English which had been in Latin as by Parrots but did not see the Evil of such a Frame of Worship having known no other So the same Dr. Tayâ—or when Bp. Bonâ—er was about degrading him Swore by St. Peter Acts and Monuments p. 174. as Joseph by the Life of Pharaoh but that doth not justifie such a practice Sect. 18. He now undertaketh p. 11 c. to make it appear that the Jesuitical Party had a great hand in the beginning of the Separation as he calleth it How doth this consist with what he had said That he will not say that we are set on by the Jesuits That Papists did not Separate at first in Queen Elizabeth's Daies we can give no Account knowing that Policy not Conscience often governeth their Actions That Non-conformists did go along with the Church in all her practices he largely insisteth on afterward and there it is to be considered whether it was so or not and if o what is our Concern in it He telleth a long Story of Jesuits imployed under the Disguise of more zealous Trotestants to oppose the Liturgy c. and to set up a Separation the truth of which I shall not dispute for it hath alwaies been the way of that active party to endeavour the Dividing of them that are not of their Communion But I know not what Blame that can reflect upon the Non-conformists or their practices I do not doubt the same party had a hand in the Divisions of Calvinists from Lutherans and are willing to take all occasions to divide that they may ruin but if the Lord turn it to Good and to their Disappointment and if his Servants keep his Way while they part from the way of other Men let the Jesuits do their worst and let us do our Duty there is neither harm nor blame in it Were it not very easie for us 〈◊〉 we had any confidence in such Arguments to shew what a hand Jesâ—its haâ—e in setting on our Adversaries in such peremptory cleaving to their Indifferent Ceremonies that they will rather see the Church torn in a thousand pieces than part with one of them and in prosecuting Men tho' never so found in the Articles of the Church's Doctrine and Innocent and Holy in their Conversation because they cannot yield over the Belly of Scripture-Light and of their Consciences to the Use of these Trifles Doth not this look more like a Design of Jesuits to embroil the Church that they may ruine her while such measures are unaccountable and the Admiration of all the Reformed Churches that behold our Differences Sect. 19. Whether the Papers he speaketh of and the Confession of Heath the Jesuit and the Letter mentioned have any thing of Truth or be a Sham as many such things have been in our daies it were such a wild-Goose chase to follow forth the Enquiry as I do not hope to come to the end of it and it were not Operae pretium to find the Truth of it That Coleman Hallingham and Benson are named in the Letter and also recorded by Mr. Fuller and others as forward Non-conformists proveth no more but that the cunning Jesuits knew how to insinuate into the most Unwary as these with Button are represented to be by their forwardness beyond others as appeareth Fuller's Ch. Hist. Book 9. Pag. 81. Pag. 108. Where he saith they cut-did all of their own Opinion And was there ever a Party among whom some might not be found fit Tools by their Indiscretion to be imployed by cunning Artificers for raising Troubles without casting a Reflection of Blame on the whole Party But our Author should have at the same time taken notice out of the same Historian p. 76. that the Bishops in 5 Eliz. 1563. being impowered by their Canons began to urge Subscriptions to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and by so doing gave Rise to these Mens and others appearing as they did and branded the Refusers with the odious Name
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
the World judge We are content to set aside all the Authority of men Ancient and Modern and to referr our debate simply to the Determination of Scripture But mens Authority is the Argument that the Dr. in this Book doth most insist upon I hope the Reader may by this time perceive whether the Dr. doth truly or faIsly Assign the Foundation of our Differences which I with him acknowledge to be unhappy Sect. 21. He saith p. 14. That in the English Reformation they proceeded more out of reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rule Here are two mistakes not to be passed in silence 1. The Ancientest Church had none of the Ceremonies they were neither in the Apostolick Church nor in that which was near it How ancient they were he will after give occasion to enquire So that England took for their pattern the Church that was much declined both in Antiquity and Purety 2. What can be more grosly false than to say that other Reformers made meer opposition to Popery with their rules Two things make the contrary evident 1. They did not reject all that Papists held as That there is one God c. 2. They rejected nothing of Popery but what they gave other reasons for than that the Papists held it to wit That it was contrary to Scripture or not instituted by Christ and so condemned in Scripture as vain Worship being a Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men We make Symbolizing with Papists or other Idolaters an Argument against the Ceremonies but we reject them not on that account only and so meer opposition to Popery is not the rule of our Reformation Sect. 22. He complaineth that Calvin and others did insinuate that the English Reformation was Imperfect Nay they openly mainâ—ained it and so do we He doth twice mis-represent Calvin's Words p. 14 15. That he had avowed in the Letter before-cited to the Protector That the best Rule of Reformation is to go as far from Popery as they could No such Words are to be found in that Letter nor any thing that will import so much He doth indeed press the removing of all Popish Ceremonies as having been abused to Idolatry and citeth Psal. 16. 4. Where David saith That he will not take up the names of idols in his mouthâ— but he neither maketh this the Rule nor the best Rule of Reformation He knew that Scripture and Institution which he had a little before-mentioned was the Rule and a far better Rule than that Tho' even that hath its use to direct us in Reformation of the Church Again he saith That Calvin yieldeth to this Moderation that such Ceremonies might be retained as were easie and fitted to the Capacity of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist His words are Adeoque Ceremonias ipsas ad usum captum esse accommodandas sed non minus constanter affirmo Videndum esse ne sub illo praetextu toleratur quicquam quod a Satana vel Antichristo profectum sit Here is no advice to retain any Humane Ceremonies but all of that sort fall under that Censure they being not from God and being Parts of Worship they are from Satan or Antichrist but he would have all the Externals of Worship so fitted to peoples capacity as that they do not hinder but rather help in the inward exercise of it And if Calvin did yield in that Infancy of the Reformation which I think he did not otherwise he could not blame the Imperfection of it That the Ceremonies might be retained it maketh nothing for perpetuating of them The Dr. saith They proceeded by this Rule of Moderation taking away all the Ceremonies that were of late Invention And he saith p. 14. That the Ceremonies retained were more ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church It had been fit to have removed all that were of Humane Invention for Antiquity can neither prejudice Christ's Instituâ—ions nor warrant Mens But it is not true that all the Ceremonies retained were so ancient as shall be made appear in due time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Kneelling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper Neither will it free our Ceremonies from being Popish that they were before the great Apostasy if it be made appear that they were with a considerable degree of the Apostasy yea and a part of it Sect. 23. He endeavoureth to free our Ceremonies from Popery because the Cross is used by Papists in the Scrutinies before Baptism we use it after Baptism and Kneeling is not strictly required by the Roman Church in the act of Receiving as appeareth by the Pope's sitting or a little leaning For the first What great difference doth it make whether Crossing be used before or after Baptism seeing it is not to be omitted but belongeth to that Sacrament as one of its Adjuncts Our quarrel with it is not that it is used after Baptism but that it is used being none of Christ's Institutions but of Man's Invention and abused in the Popish Administration of Baptism For the Second I hope he will not deny that Kneeling in the act of Receiving is the constant Practice and required among the Papists and That the Pope who to them is above the Laws of God should be exempted from the Laws of their Church is so insignificant an Argument against Kneeling being required by them that I wonder to see it used by so Learned a man. For his Plain Linen Garment only used instead of many of the Popish Vâ—stments which was used in the time of Jerom and Austin I deny that it is the only Vestment that they use as appropriated to Religion and religious Persons any who readâ—th the Book of Canons made Anno 1603. Can. 74. may see the contrary the Reverend Clergy there busying themselves to order the fashion of Cloaths that all of them should use But that the Surplice is as ancient as Hierom and Augustin I shall not now examine seeing it is too well known that many Abuses were crept into the Church sooner than their days the one flourishing in the end of the Fourth Century the other in the Fifth I see no cause why any man should stand amazed at the noise that is made against the mischief of these Impositions as he saith p. 16. seeing all that he hath said doâ—h not clear them from being Men's Devices in God's Worship and consequently vain Worship which is a burden to any Conscience that regardeth Christ's Authority more than that of Men. Sect. 24. He pretendeth Sect. 5. to give Reasons why the Ceremonies were retained by our Reformers tho' they were distasteful to some Protestants and like to prove the Occasions of future Contentions These Reasons are three 1. Out of a due reverence to Antiquity 2. To justifie the Reformation before Enemies in that we would not break with them for meer indifferent things 3. To
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church
one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
necessity of Separation Ans. 1. The Dr. then maketh no difference between a Scruple that hath ground for it and one that hath none If he can make our Scruple appear to be groundless as he confesseth theirs to be he hath advantage against us Ans. 2. Is there no difference between having probable grounds for a Scruple and having no such grounds Is there any comparison between scrupling at using Religious Ceremonies that have no warrant in the word but are in general at least condemned in it and scrupling at some pretended Corruptions that no Scripture Condemneth Ans. 3. If the Dr's reasoning be good either we must bear with none that scruple unless we scruple the same thing Or we must bear with all that Scruple The first of these excludeth all Christian forbearance the last he will not alledge Ans. 4. He mentioneth Impositions as to Order and Discipline only that we may seem Imposers as well as his party is that is unreasonable not only because we can shew Christ's Laws for our Order and Discipline which he will not pretend to shew for the Ceremonies But also because we can bear with sober and faithful Brethren that cannot approve of all that we do which his Party will not Sect. 20. He mistaketh the Case when he insinuateth That we have no more but scruple of Conscience to plead The Dr. should not have alledged this till he or some of his party had answered all our Reasons of Scrupling in many Books neither touched by him or any other But now he will Knock down our cause with one blow He saith he put the Case as clear as possible to prevent all Subterfuges and slight Evasions He supposeth five scrupling Parties one at the Liturgy a Second at the Cross and Kneelling a Third at wrong gathered Churches a Fourth at Infant Baptism a Fifth at Preaching by set Forms and being stinted by an Hour-glass And he saith the Nature of the Case doth not vary according to these If this be the Dr's Herculean Argument we shall not need to fear his Strength so much as before Surely the Learned Dr's parts could let him see more Reason to bear with sober and intelligent men who dare not join with a Church in worshipping God by Religious Ceremonies not instituted by Christ than with Fantastick Quakers who cast off God's Ordinances because of an Hour-glass but that his prejudice doth in this darken his understanding But the Tendency of his Discourse seemeth to be either Church-Authority must lead us Blind-fold so as we must scruple nothing imposed or neither Scripture nor Reason shall limit our Fancy but we may scruple what we will. He saith well p. 76. and the Non-conformists before him had said it If they alledge Grounds to justifie themselves they must do it ex natura rei and not from the meer errour or mistake of Conscience We will most willingly join issue with him on this Condition provided the natura rei may be judged by Scripture as all the Worship of God should be If he can prove the Ceremonies that we scruple to be such as we may use without Sin or if we prove not the contrary let him call us as vile Separatists as he pleaseth If the Dr. had pleased at first to hang the matter on this Pin and not to have filled his Book with so many Citations to strengthen his Cause with Humane Authority he might have saved both himself and me all this labour that hitherto we have been at It is no great commendation either of the wisdom or of the sobriety of his Church that he saith Shâ— hath as much occasion cause he should have said to judge their the Presbyterians scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Quakers What followeth about occasional communion is answered above That which he citeth out of Mr. A. of the Assemby's being transported in the heat of Dispute is not so derogatory from that venerable Meeting as he would make it It is rare to find it otherwise with sinful men How many things did thus slip from the Pens of several of the Fathers that the Dr. will not approve But we do not hereby give up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren nor forsake the Assemblies Principles it is one thing not to approve all that men say and another thing to condemn the Cause that they plead for Sect. 21. Our Author doth next undertake Sect. 17. to shew how we have deserted the Principles of the old Non-conformists as to private Persons reforming Church-Discipline setting up new Churches and the preaching of Ministers when silenced by the Laws For the setting up of Churches and Discipline he citeth several Non-conformists against it without the Magistrate p. 78 79 80 81 82. To all which I answer That two things are expresly in these Citations that make what they condemned not to reach our Case For 1. They condemn private mens endeavouring a publick Reformation that belonging to the Magistrate so it is thrice expressed p. 81. out of Confut. of the Brownists Now we meddle not with a publick Reformation otherwise than by our Prayers and Advice as we have occasion which is there also expresly allowed by them but content our selves to serve God privately when we cannot do it publickly without Sin. To this same purpose is that which is cited out of Giffard p. 79. That tho' every one ought to keep a good Conscience yet no private Persons are to take on them publick Authority to reform If we do so blame us for it 2. These Non-conformists all along speak of private Persons reforming the Discipline of the Church Now what is done among us of that kind is done by Ministers who though in the State they are private persons and therefore are not to meddle with matters of that concern Yet in the Church they are publick persons and have Authority from God to dispense his Ordinances But I do not by what I have said intend to homologate all that the Dr. citeth out of these Non-conformists several things they assert that cannot well be defended but I shall not digress so far as to particularize them Sect. 22. I shall only say That had this Principle of not reforming the Ordinances of Christ by People among themselves till the Magistrate gave countenance taken alwaies place in the World not only Christianity had not come in the place of Judâ—ism but Arrianism had extinguished the Orthodox Profession Have we not Examples of People who were under Arian Bishops setting up new Bishops over themselves in Epiphan Haeres 73 Doth not Hilary exhort the People to separate from Auxentius their Arian Bishop adversus Arianos when yet there was no Orthodox Magistrate to countenance these things Yea had this Principle obtained there had been no Reformation from Popery in most places where now through the Lord's mercy it is Say not that our reforming of Worship and Discipline is not in things of that moment for tho' that be true yet it is not of
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
the reason why the Orthodox might Worship God apart from the Arians was because it had been their sin to join in corrupted Worship though we do not equal the owning of the Arian Doctrine and using the Ceremonies yet we reckon the one to be Sin as really as the other and we may not commit a smaller Sin to enjoy Communion with a Church more than we may commit a greater Sin for that end And we are not obliged to live without the Ordinances of God when we cannot have them with the Church without Sin more than the Oxthodox were who lived under the Arians Sect. 3. Tho' the Dr. it seems had designed this Section for stating of the Question upon which his whole Book is founded I see no formal Stating of it Concessions are but preparatory to the Stating of a Controversie except that he saith he had told Mr. B. that all our dispute was whether the upholding separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine Established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a sinful Separation or not This is no sufficient stating of the Controversy between the Prelatists and Dissenters about Separation Two things in it are not sufficiently clear and some things needful to be minded in our present Controversy are left out The First thing that is not clear is That he will not allow any fault in Doctrine to justifie Separation but what is in the Established Doctrine that is either that which is contained in the Churches confession of Faith or is setled by Law. But it is evident there may be such faults in Doctrine as may make them that regard their Souls Health withdraw from a Church which are not here comprehended that is when gross Errors are commonly taught contrary to the Doctrine contained in the Publick Confession of Faith and which is Established by Law That this is a Case supposeable yea that it ought to have been supposed with reference to our Controversy appeareth in that it is most common in England for Ministers who have subscribed the 39. Articles to teach Doctrines quite contrary to them as I observed above It is no rarity for unconscientious men to subscribe to whatever is imposed rather than lose a Benefice and mean while to Hold and Teach what they please notwithstanding of such Subscription Now if a Church should become so corrupt that Heresie is commonly taught though the Orthodox Faith be Established ought not People to withdraw from that Church Or if many teach dangerous Doctrine contrary to established Truth ought not People withdraw from such Teachers Especially when there is no way to get this unsound teaching removed or restrained Sect. 4. Another thing in the Dr's State of the Question is unclear to wit That where the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be right there should be no Separation What he meaneth by these is a Controversy it self and he is at a great deal of Pains to clear what he meaneth by this Term Part. 3. p. 334. whither I referr the Debate with him about it But what if any part of Worship be unlawful call it Substantial or Circumstantial or what he will Or what if something be Annexed to the True Worship of God which is sinful but yet so peremptorily imposed as none shall worship God without it I ask the Dr. whether in this case we may separate though we scruple not any part of that worship that he is pleased to call Substantial Worship Sect. 5. Some things are also left out by the Dr. in his Stating of the Controversy which were needful to have been minded As 1st To clear what he meaneth by Separation I have above shewed that sometimes they that are charged with Separation are meerly Passive in it sometimes they are Active The First is when the Church casteth them out because they cannot submit to her Impositions The Second when they take offence at something in the Church and therefore leave her but are not cast out by her but have free and peaceable Access to all her Ordinances In the first Case which is ours if they causlesly scruple at the Impositions they may be charged with Ignorance or Errour of Conscience or Peevishness and Willfulness but how they can be charged with Separation I know not more than a Banished Man can be blamed as a Fugitive from his Country And if they have good cause to scruple the Impositions I see not how any blame can be fixed on them at all 2. He should have shewed whether by Separation he meaneth casting off all ties to have Communion with that Church more than with another Church that professeth the true Faith as a Man or Company that live in Holland have no more Tie to Communicate in England than in France c. or a present forbearing of Communion because of sinful Terms with owning an Obligation to communicate with this Church when these Bars shall be removed In the one case all relation to that Church in particular is cast off in the other not so It is but a suspending the Exercise of Communion as a Church-member not a disowning it or casting it off Sect. 6. He is defective in mentioning no other alledged grounds of Separation but false Doctrine Established or wrong substantial parts as he calleth them of Worship He knoweth little of the Controversy that he manageth if he knew not that other grounds are alledged and therefore it had been fair to have fixed the Question on them whether it be lawful to separate on such and such grounds It is true his question may include all the grounds that can be alledged beside the two mentioned but that which is the main Hinge of our Controversy should have been mentioned in stating of the Question 4. It being confessed on both Hands that there is a sinful Separation it should have been one part of his question where the Sin of this Separation is chargeable whether on the Imposers or the Scruplers of those things that cause the Separation But he is willing to set his Church beyond all imaginable blame and to put the Question only whether the Dissenters have any blame or not 5. It should not have been omitted to enquire whether the Grounds alledged for Separation lie in things really Evil or only fanâ—ied to be such And again whether the Evil of them be such as will bear the weight of Separation Sect. 7. I shall then endeavour to state the Question more fully and clearly than the Dr. hath done There are indeed divers questions on which this question about Separation doth depend and therefore our Controversy cannot be represented in one single question to which an Affirmative or Negative Answer will suffice It is then 1. A great part of our Controversy seeing the Liturgy as to the Frame of it and Ceremonies are by the Clergy thought indifferent and so unnecessary That God may be acceptably Worshipped without them and the
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
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
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
confesseth that Sedulius Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam In Comment in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom because he was a Presbyter and no Bishop I hope they will allow us the like liberty to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them who themselves were Bishops and then let them reckon their Gain when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll. Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications and other Censures saith they are done in the Assemblies and that praesident probati quique seniores Clem. Alexandr Stromat lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common and every Assembly had its president with power of Discipline Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century when no little Deviation had been made from the right way yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked quia sine alicujus fratris consilio But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause was approved quia cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processit Ambros Ep. ad Syagrium And even Cyprian as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy as that age could bear Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine as a Witness of this Truth Ep. 19. ad Hieron Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit He maketh the Bishop Major not Lord over the Presbyter and even that Majority was but by the Custom of the Church not divine Ordinance and a custom that had now obtained was not always Also lib. quaest com he proveth from 1 Tim. 3. Bâ—shop and Presbyter to be one and saith quâ—d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter and this Oâ—eness he further sheweth because Bishops such as then were to wit in the beginning of the Fifth Century when the Order of the Church was much changed called the Presbyters Compresbyteri but never called the Deacons Condiaconi Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office but Deacons being distinct from them both The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3. homil 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt sola quippe ordinatione superiores illâ— sunt Bellarm. saith that Primasius Theophilactus and Oecumenius on that Text teach the same things and almost in the same words And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century the last in the Tenth or Eleventh The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this is not worth taking notice of to wit Chrysost. meaneth that Presbyters have jurisdiction as Bishops have but only by Commission from the Bishop This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse which is to shew an Identity of them as they are in themselves What he alledgeth out of this Citation that a Bishop may ordain not a Presbyter the learned Father's expression will not bear for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge or that the difference between them was only in order or precedency not in Power or any Authority or that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution but it can never signifie the power of ordaining for then Christ who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said potestate ordinandi not Ordinatione Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations which tho they be not â—oncludent in themselves being but humane Testimonies yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church The 1 is That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters lib. 4. dist 24. liter I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons because the primitive Church had only these and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment the rest were after appointed by the Church And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop Arch-Bishop c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins Horum autem disoretio saith he a gentilibus introducta videtur Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy The 2 Consideration is That the Waldenses Albigenses Wickliff and his Followers and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrinâ—s that the Protestants now profess were of a Parity among Presbyters and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops This is confessed by Medina and is not denyed by Bellarm and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders Priests and Deacons and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops where their Religion was suppressed The third thing that I offer to be considered is The observation of Spanhemius a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church in his Epitom Isagâ—g ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii as Tertul. de pudicitia c. 25. or only a reverence to their age and their conversing with the Apostles and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition SECT IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple on the forementioned grounds I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned to wit to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches in the times of Cyprian and Augustine and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations 1. That his phrase is ambiguous that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth
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
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
to themselves than thus to prelimit the people in that which so nearly concerns their Souls and to make that but an Accessory to wit the charge of Souls which should be the thing principally minded As now the Living is 2. The Magistrate or Patrons electing of a Minister may give him a Title to the Living but it can never make him the Pastor of such a people nor fix a Relation between him and them of Pastor and Flock For it is wholly Forreign to the Church as a Church it is a thing of Worldly concern and therefore can never found that Relation which is an Institution of Christ in his Church 3. We do not deny but when the people have chosen a Pastor and the Presbytery hath ordained him also the Magistrate may Imprison Banish or otherwise punish him so as he is consequentially restrained from the exercise of his Ministry among that people if the man be guilty of a civil crime of which the Magistrate is Judge but we deny that this Act doth dissolve the ministerial relation between that Pastor and People that cannot be done but by the Church 4. We do not so put Election into the hand of the multitude as either to exclude the Eldership that is among them or to exempt the people from their guidance in this The Eldership ought to regulate this Action yet so as it be not done without the consent of the generality 5. We are far from saying That the People by their Election doth make the Elected person a Minister that is done by Ordination which is in the Hands of the Presbytery 6. We do not say That this Elective power of the people is Arbitrary and independent they are to be bounded in it by the Rules of the Gospel that set forth the qualifications of Ministers and if they chuse contrary to these the Presbytery may reject the person and refuse to ordain him 7. We deny not but a part of a Church or the whole Church may forfeit this Right as to the present exercise of it by Ignorance Scandal Irreconcileable Contentions about the matter and such like in which case the power of Election devolveth into the hands of the Pastors of the Churches associated I mean the Presbytery Yet the peoples satisfaction should be endeavoured as much as is possible 8. It is the Right of the people which they ought not to be deprived of nor restrainâ—d from exercising ordinarily nor without singularly weighty cause to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 3. As to the Author of this Right in the people I maintain that it is neither from the Churches Determination nor from any grant from the Magistrate neither do I plead any Law of nature for it For by Divine Institution which is never contrary to the Law of Nature it was otherwise in the Jewish Church And though there be abundant reason for it it being the priviledge of Free Corporations and other Societies to chuse these that are to govern them and it being rational that a Corporation or person may chuse the Lawyer that they will intrust their Estates to and the Physician in whose hand they put their life so men should not be imposed upon to entrust the Conduct of their Souls to a person that they have not confidence in and whom they cannot chuse for that end Yet I say we do not lay the stress of the matter on Humane Reason but on Gospel Institution I affirm then that this is the Institution of Christ that it is the order that he hath appointed in the Gospel that people should have liberty to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 4. I am next to shew the grounds that we have to think so I shall prove this by shewing that it was the constant practice in the Church while the Apostles managed the Affairs of it that Church Officers were chosen by the suffrages of the people and I hope it will not be denied that such practice is declarative of Christ's Institution The first Argument for it is from Act. 14. 23. where though Ordination or appointing be expressed in our Translation yet the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ignifieth a chusing by Suffrages as the manner of the Grecians was by stretching out or lifting up the hand for that is the force of the Word to declare their Votes I deny not that this Word is sometimes used figuratively for potestative mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one person withot Suffrages as Act. 10. 14. yet it is very rare that the Word is so used And it is evident that the Word is most commonly usâ—d in this sence of all the Instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of this Word not one of them is to the contrary And it cannot be Instanced that ever this word is used for laying on of hands lifting up which is the force of the Word and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other Neither is it fit to seek for the Figurative signification of the Word when the proper signification may be admitted It is objected against this use of the Word here that they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them not to themselves that is the Apostles to the people ordained Elders Answ. It cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used indifferently for them or themselves and why it may not here be understood of themselves I see not so as that here is denoted the Action of appointing Elders for the people in which the people had a hand by Election as the Word here importeth and the Apostles had a hand by Ordination as can be proved by other Scriptures But if we should turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the sense may run plainly thus the Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the people upon their Electing them by Suffrages It is no strange thing in Scripture to see divers Actions expressed by the same Word where one is the consequent of the other as Is. 38. 17. Thou hast Loved my Soul out of the pit of corruption i.e. delivered it because thou loved it Also Act. 7. 9. The Patriarchs are said to sell Joseph to Egypt where both their Actions and the Actions of the Midianites who carried him to Egypt and there sold him are included in one Word Many Instances of this kind of Synthesis may be seen in Glâ—ss Philol. Sacr. lib. 3. tract 3. p. 229 It is also objected that these are said to Ordain who commended the people to the Lord that is the Apostles and that the Apostles are spoken of all along in the Nominative Case and not the people and therefore they must be the Actors meant by this word Answ. We deny not the Apostles to be Actors meant in this Word as the Patriarchs were in the Word Selling to Egypt Act. 7. 9. but we
plead against himself For he saith p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony that it be done sub populi Assistentis conscientia that by their presence either their Faults might be published or their good Acts commended that so it might appear to be a just and lawful Ordination which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all And after Cyprian saith It came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolick practice that a Bishop should be chosen plebe presente not by the Votes of the people says the Doctor One would think all this time the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause and yet will out-face plain light to defend it Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes if their presence their Testimony commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate their knowledge and assistance can consist with Patronage and obtruding of Ministers on the people as a Master of a Flock setteth a Sheepherd over his Sheep it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor 's Conclusion If these do not import the peoples consent to be required and so amount to Election let any indifferent Reader judge It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power but maketh it a Divine Right and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust and unlawful Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgment there would be few Ministers in the Church of England and so more cause for separation than he is aware of but I do not improve his Testimony to that end The Doctor p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad and chuse the good and yet hath the Brow to say That this is no more then their Testimony but if Testimony be chusing we require no more but Testimony It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people to see what they had to say against them and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors For 1. This was never declared to be necessary and appointing Governours unjust or unlawful without it as it is in our case 2. We have proved that the people have power of Suffrage and of chusing which was not granted by Severus That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo is such an Argument against us as sheweth a very weak cause especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing For it is Election we speak of not Ordination in which we confess the people have no hand neither doth Origen say That this Ordination could proceed without the peoples being more concerned about the person than standing by while he was Ordained and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is p. 318. That the people upon this Assuming the power of Elections caused great Disturbance and disorders in the Church To this I answer in general 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election whether on Christ's Institution or any subsequent ground if the latter let him shew it if the former it is improper to say they assumed what was ever their due The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people after that priviledge had been out of their hand for some time 2. There is no Institution of Christ but inconveniences may follow on it as long as sinful men have the managing of it Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops and Presbyters Yea of civil power in the hands of Magistrates yea of power of Election in the hands of Patrons It were easie to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose Will the Doctor thence conclude that all these should be abolished 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced as following on the peoples Election of their Pastors as of most other things The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years that this power of the people lasted unviolated and that through all the Christian Churches I do not deny but more there might be but when so few occurr as observable to a man of so great reading it saith more against the Doctors design than all these Instances say for it 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people and leading them into Factions and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy in the degenerate State of the Church and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds and were in a mean condition so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur and imparity than against popular Elections As is evident from Ammian Marcellin whom the Doctor citeth as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome when the Contest was about Damasus where he sheweth That they aspired to that Bishoprick with all their might considering how the Bishop was enriched Oblationibus Matronarum rode in Chariots were Gorgeously attired fared sumptuously and saith They might have shuned these inconveniences had they despised this grandeur and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces whose humble carriage poor fare and mean habit commended them to God and good men 5. It is worth our Observation that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ when the Church was in her Integrity and had not degenerated as she did afterward 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances to wit the Magistrate ought to suppress them and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly as they take the Sacraments though peoples priviledge from them that walk unworthy of them When inconveniences fall in we must take God's way not our own to set things right again Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all the Doctors Alledgeances on this head but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were For the â—st Instance the Disorder at Antioch it was not as he representeth it about the chusing of a new Bishop to a vacant place but about putting an Arian Bishop at least supposed to be so into the place of Eustathius who had long been peaceably in that place and regularly chosen but was injuriously deposed by the Arians Neither was Eustathius chosen at last as the Doctor saith but rid out the Storm and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Hereticks And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose The next Instance is at Caesarea The person that carried the Election was Basil the Magistrates and the worst of the people opposing him Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth and it cannot be justified but cannot infer
Priest that is opeâ—ly so yet he may present a Protestant in Masquerade or one of the meanest of men for parts and other qualities of a Minister which it is known they often do when yet the Law of the Land can haâ—dly reâ—ch the Man. And a Debauched Patron may present one who will not reprove him too severely who yet may have qualifications to satisfie the Law. But the dissenâ—ions that arise among a divided people may be remedied by Church Dâ—scipline or if they break out into external disorders by the Magistrate 3. Bâ—cause saith he other reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable preteâ—ce Answ. Mens Authority must not preponderate with us against that of Christ. He proveth what he saith 1. By Beza declaiming against popular Election see this in Bâ—z Ep. 83. Answ. Beza speaketh only against Election by the people without their Church-guides to manage them in that action The Lutheran Churches that he next addeth are no Examples to us Their way is much applauded by the Church of England men much more then the way of Englâ—nd is by them For as Pezel melâ—fic â—ist part 3. p. 345. observeth none did more fiercely persecute the Exiles in Qu. Mary's days than they did in Denmark Lubeck Rostoch and especially at Hamburgh The Salvo of the Synod of Dort shewâ—th that they did not allow Patronages but must proceed warily in removing them which hath been the case of other Churches but maketh against the Doctâ—r's opinion not foâ— it That the Ministers in France or the Council of State at Genâ—va chuse Ministers and obtrude them on the people without their consent we deny Sect. 28. I have by what is said preoccupied most of the Doctor 's Reasons against Mr. B. contained Sect. 26. I shall only take notice of a few things We make void no Laws about Patronage but so far as they respect the peoples right of chusing a pastor for their Souls and thus far they are cassate by the Laws of â—hrist As to Temple and Tythes as he speaks we medle not with Laws about them only we wish the removing of them as a Griâ—vance and that Rulers would provide for the Church in a way that the peoples right of Elâ—ction might not be hindered nor restrained in its Exercise Mr. B. objecteth p. 330. That the Patron by giving a right to Temple and Tythes doth not make the man a Minister to that peopleâ— Souls and the Parliament cannot dispose of peoples Souls The Doctor instead of an Answer giveth the meaning of this that if the people be humersome and factious they may run after whom they please in opposition to Laws This is ad populum fâ—lâ—ras but no fair way of Arguing The true meaning is that though the Paâ—non by Law may give a man a title to the Temple and Tythes and the people can neither keep him out of the Church nor deny to pay his dues yet the Law cannot make him their Pastor without their consent I do not say they should run after another it is fit they should consent to a tolerable person so imposed on them for peace sake yet it is not the Law but their consent that maketh him their Minister That Anabaptists Quakâ—rs and Papists will put in for a share in this priviledge is but a mâ—an objection for Christ hath given people power to chuse sound Pastors not whom they will. The Doctor asketh Whether all must have equal Votes then the worst who are the most part will chuse one like themselves Answ. This is to be regulated by the Guides of the Church the worst are to be instructed yea and censured if need be and if they chuse a bad man the Pastors are not to ordain him He alledgeth few are competent Judges Answ. Many can judge tolerably and they who cannot are to be guided by others but the matter is not wholly left to their judgment the Elected man being to be tryed by the Eldership He enlargeth on the tumulâ—s and strifs in popular Elections This hath been abundantly answered above That the matter is devolved on a few doth not take away the right of others who are willing to be advised by these few The Doctor is as certain that Christ never gave people such an unalterable right as he is that he designed Peace and Unity in the Church This certainty is built on no good grounds and therefore amounteth to no more but fancy I have shewed ground for a contrary perswasion and a way that Christ hath laid down for peace consistent with this right SECT VII Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church and First of the Liturgy THe Reverend Author is now at last Sect. 26. come to that which I reckon the main plea for our withdrawing from the Communion of the Church of England to wit the Terms of Communion that she imposeth on all that shall partake with her in the Ordinances of God which we count unlawful and therefore cannot submit to them the Church imposeth them so as none are permitted to joyn with her who forbear them and therâ—fore we cannot partake without them This putteth us on a necessity of forbearing Communion with her and the necessity of Worshipping God doth not suffer us to live without the Ordinances and thence resulteth a necessity of keeping sepâ—rate meetings which our Brethren blame us for and we blame them for forâ—ing us to it against our will. If these Terms of Communion upon due examination prove lawful we refuse not the blame of separation which we think as gâ—eat as they do but if they prove unlawful then doth the blame lie at their door who impose them Yea unbyassed men will say that if the things be but indifferent and of no necessity the Imposers cannot justifie the imposing of them when so sad inconvenience followeth upon them Sect. 2. These Terms of Communion in particular are the constant use of the Liturgy and the Ceremonies which are the Cross in Baptism Kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper and observing of Holy-days that God hath not appointed â—â—her Ceremonies they have which we also dislike but because they are not imposed as Terms of Communion we do not here mention them What is to be said of Godfathers and â—odmothers in Baptism we shall in its place examine The Doctor excuseth himself from saying any thing about the Lituâ—â—y because it hath laâ—ely been so very well defended by a Divine of this Church ciâ—eing on his Margin Dr. Falâ—oner's Vindication of Liturgies and I for the like cause forbear this debate or answering Dr. Falkoner that having been exceeding well done Anno 1681. by the Learned G. F. in his Questions between the Conformist and Nonconformist truly stated and briefly discussed which the Doctor if he had pleased to read the Writings on both sides the neglect of which he blameth us for might have taken notice of before his Third Edition came out 1682. But beside that neither Doctor Falkoner nor any other
the Command of Superiors in that sense Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews p. 342. for this he sheweth That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists to prove That they equalled their Traditions with the Commands of God and hâ—nce inferreth that this was not look't â—n as an indifferent Ceremony but as a thing whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth to wit the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church not before so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies Wherefore Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse by this one saying as the Dr. alleadgeth I well know what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them But all this Sanctity they founded not only natural or antecedent goodness of the things observed but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them He telleth us that they said Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom deserveth not only Excommunication but Death too and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies except that it is not yet made death by the Law though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account hath brought them to their death I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of Eâ—gland that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings He admireth p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews and required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are A. He need not admire for none of us say so of that Washing when imposed and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition as our Ceremonies are That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are a Reason of the difference is already given to wit That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies for taking away Uncleanness Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution for honouring Him and edifying of Souls Sect. 13. He proceedeth Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth by considering the Popish Ceremonies and their opinion of washing away Sin and Justification by them And for this he citeth many Authors all which pains might have been spared For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abouâ— the Jews opinion of their Washings and needeth no other Answer All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies is consequent to and dependent on their being injoyned by the Church None of them say that they have such Efficacy in themselves and that they attribute taking away of sin to them ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works which the Church of England doth not maintain The Church of England maketh them good Works but denieth their Merit because she denieth that even to the Works that God hath commanded The Papists do but make them good Works also and that they think them meritorious is from this their opinion that all good Works are such and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves without Institution They ascribe spiritual Effects to them saith he so do you to your Ceremonies as stirring up of dull Minds engaging the Soul to God c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this without a Divine Institution that it has to drive away Devils as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity by the Doctor on this ground He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies with these of Rome but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites than that hath to make them Causes of Grace He telleth us pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise than as purged from Popish Superstition and for this citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer and Can. 30. Answer Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned if they may be their own Judges it is Amicum Testimonium I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them but to purge out all is impossible The things themselves as stated in the Worship of God without His Institution being such Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause by this Discourse our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies viz. That these things being unnecessary in themselves that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition ought not to be brought into God's Worship by them who abhor that way nor indeed can they without much scandal But of this and other Arguments I have treated elsewhere Sect. 14. His second way how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship he hath pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians And this he purgeth the Church of England from What is already said doth abundantly refute this for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts tho bad ones of Worship without this and the former too And indeed if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship none of the Popish Ceremonies were such for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God as he pleaseth more than the English Convocation will And I believe there was never Church in the world that held That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned unalterable and so as to bind all Christians But still the Doctor as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies and their Practice in reference to them If they be alterable why will ye rather ruine your Brethren hazard Souls rend the Church than alter them If they bind not our Consciences why do ye charge us with Sin for refusing them If they bind not all men why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon by many of your Church Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship and answereth them It is here to be observed that the Arguments that he mentioneth are but some of many that we use against the Ceremonies And these not they that are most directly against them Mr. A. Argueth thus An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of and Subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship The Dr. Answereth An outward visible Sign representing between men the duty or engagement of another is no
by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto and not restored untill he repent and publickly revoke these his wicked Errours The Dr. hath a subtile distinction here between but affirm which term Mr. B. had used and affirm One would think that affirm and no more added to it signifieth no more than but affirm But the Dr. saith that affirm signifieth these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve Excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism I know not I am sure his citation out of Augustine that a man is born with till he find an accuser or obstinately defend his opinion saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable being asked why he doth not Conform shall say he cannot do it with a good conscience he falleth under the plain letter of this Law and goeth against the express words of it and this is the least that a modest man can say unless he will say I will not do it and that will be called obstinacy and so bring him under the Law in the Dr's own sense But if the man as a modest man may give reasons for his Non-conformity when men require him to Conform every word he saith will bring him under this Excommunication Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea is pag. 368 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists that such an excommunication is but a commination and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past applying it to him and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves by withdrawing from the Church I shall not contend about this though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth were rather ipso Jure than ipso Facto and that excommunication ipso Facto bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed But to let that pass this excommunication declareth what we are to expect and the frequent yea general execution of it putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported sure such excommunication and the fact which we neither deny nor are ashamed of are enough to loose our tie that we had to the Church Sect. 4. He answereth a question Can these be called Schismaticks who are first excommunicated by the Church He saith they may in two cases 1. When there is just cause for the sentence Reply I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismaticks but to call men Schismaticks for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out seemeth to be such a figure as when men are called Fugitives who are justly banished but I will not contend about words If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth make nothing for that none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion imposing mens devises in the Worship of God and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them His second case in which excommunicates are Schismaticks is if they set up New Churches which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned Reply He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust else this case were coincident with the former And in that case I distinguish his assertion The unjust excommunication is either for an alledged personal fault or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false Again it is either past against one or few or it is against a great multitude a considerable part of a Church or Nation If it be for an alledged personal fault where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned I do not say that such may set up new Churches It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine Worship or Discipline but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle falsly called errour and it also reacheth a great part of the Church Ministers and People I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves let men call it setting up of new Churches or what they will. For 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation or near so many should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God for the Caprice of some ambitious Church-men who excommunicate them because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case the Orthodox had been Schismaticks when they were excommunicated by the Arians and set up New Churches 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances because of their love to the purity of them What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes not for any thing of their Faith for he bids them keep the true Faith without Separate meetings Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth in the end of page 371. and forward to consider another Plea made for separation to wit scruple of Conscience which I think none do make the sole ground of separation but they have a ground for their scruple If that ground be good it will warrant the scruple and the separation too if not it can do neither And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea distinct from what I have already defended I suppose the Author that mention it intend no more than I say only they may rationally maintain that a scruple not sufficiently warranted in a person otherwise sober and sound about a matter indifferent or not intollerably evil tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant nor a Casuist but of somewhat else that I shall not name For when it had been pleaded that these scruples are great of long standing not to be removed without very over-powering impressions on mens minds He answereth by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries that a little impartiality and consideration would do it but that
we read judge and hear only on one side think it a temptation to examin cry out we are satisfied already are not willing to be informed nor glad of light fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples c. If we be such men why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such and the People too to cry out away with such fellows from the Earth it is not fit they should live He asketh where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples If I should speak in his dialect I should answer in the arguments by us produced which he and all his party are not able to answer nor have ever answered but I had rather-dispute than scold He saith we may see light if we will We say we would see it if we could and think we could see it if it were to be seen He telleth us how easy this dispute is We assent and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth He chargeth us with willful mistake a mistake we deny and make the contrary of it appear but if it be a mistake that it is willful we also deny and though we cannot in this satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts who will one day judge us and our rash judgers Sect. 6. He contesteth page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook there is no need of insisting on such debates Brethren should study to understand one another and construe every thing to the best But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse pag. 72 73 74. which he hath but lightly or hardly at all touched He proceedeth pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists who objecteth that these who cannot conquer their scruples as to Communion with our Church must either return to the state of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers The Dr's Answer is that this is new Doctrine the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at Reply I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans that did both scruple and act as we do but I deny not that some did join with the Church but then their scruples and ours do differ They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient yet might be used we think them unlawful and not to be used There was also another difference they met with some indulgence and were suffered to Worship God with the Church and forbear the things that they scrupled We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these and therefore whatever they did we are under this unpleasing choice either to sin against God and our Consciences or to set up Separate Meetings or to return to the state of Paganism i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God. Sect. 7. It is objected that we scruple joining in the Sacraments and living under some of the Ministers He answereth that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation neither do I insist on it as I have before declared save where they Preach false Doctrine or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin And this scruple hath been often heard of It is too vulgar a way of reasoning it is a hard case if People must fly into separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be Pray who ever said so But the Dr. would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joining with others their separation be lawful This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge that scrupling can never make Separation lawful it is good ground for these scruples that must do that Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations might have been spared as wholly impertinent O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England he asketh what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present Separation Ans. There is in it that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising or other unlawful terms of Communion and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these He telleth us page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their scruples It is true neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account but withal he might have added that few setled Churches except that of Rome and that of England do tempt or rather force men to scruple and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion which they know many count unlawful What he saith ibid. for Papists Anabaptists and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating doth no way come up to our case Neither are their scruples built on good grounds nor are the things that they scruple known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation by shewing what scruples are to be allowed and what not Hath this never been done by Non-conformists Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences If these were attended to a stop might soon be put to Separation but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand and the Church will impose without cause on the other there is no putting a stop to Separations till the Lord cure our Distempers Rigour and Persecution if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party is one way to put a stop to Separation but it is none of Gods way and as it never had his approbation so it seldom hath had success Sect. 8. The Learned Author Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject to wit the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation and therefore might wave this whole debate But I think it is an abuse and therefore shall say a little on this Subject Here we have not any institution to guide us there being nothing in Scripture that I know of about Spoâ—sion for the party Baptized And therefore as on the one hand what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary should not be withstood so on the other what is beyond that should not be practised and far
upon Episcopacy which we do not and he no doubt doth it upon Misinformation But it is observable that this good man whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side doth as much blame the Church as us whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies that occasion Separation which he insisteth much on as the way to peace A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with is That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters a little after His Majesties Restauration nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians the contrary of which and their great Condescendency for Peace is known to all England and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity is the Book called A Petition for Peace containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed while the Prelatical Party would not part with yea nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony or mode of their Service Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude who walketh by the same Spirit and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague Monsieur de l' Angle He speaketh of Episcopacy as tollerable that one may with a good Conscience live under it This is not our Question but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause He telleth us they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops so do we He doth highly commend Love and Concord And we think it cannot be overvalued where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages both by Episcopacy and Parity and of disadvantages by both when managed by bad men Nothing of which do we contradict He complains of Extreams on both sides we do the same We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate as they should be After a proof of Independency he comes to speak of Presbyterians with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry this we refuse not He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart but stateth it on this ground page 445. as if we did Separate because the publick assembles are held under Episcopal Government and that we think our presence there were an approving of it which is wide from our case but no doubt is according to his information for which we â—hank our Episcopal Brethren and commend their ingenuity To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them which is far from our thoughts These Principles he doth most solidly refute He saith page 447. that he cannot believe that any of â—us Presbyterians look on their Episcopal Discipline or Ceremonies as blots and capital errours that hinder a man from Salvation And doth in this truly judge for we have always disowned such sentiments we judge them sinful evils which we dare not own but have much charity to some who own them He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation and when the dispute is about Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block and nothing in comparison of communion they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ better than themselves O that this advice were followed how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude or his Colleague touched our controversy Alas good Men they are abused by mis-representations Their Letters give just ground to think that if they were made Umpires between the two parties Prelatical and Presbyterian and heard the true state of our debate and true matters of fact they would be of the same mind with us And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side or at least to say nothing against them may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary Monsieur l' Arrogie who having writ a Book wherein he sheweth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome which all know to be Presbyterian with that of the Primitive Church And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle touching the Letters of Ignatius and the Apostolical Constitutions against Mr. Pearson and Beverige and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him at the request of some that favoured â—piscopacy he did not finish his answer These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants Ministers and others who do not Conform to the Church of England the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great Gosple Duty of charity At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies nor English Liturgy Since I wrote this I have met with another instance of Episcopal ingeâ—uity for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart dated Nov. 2d 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three poâ—itions whereof the third is a gross calumny and excellently disproved by Bochart and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him the position is Reges posse vi armis a subditis cogi in ordinem si se praebeant immorigeros de soliis deturbare in carcerem câ—njici siâ—â—i in jus carnificem deniqne capite plecti and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter as it is Printed after his Phaleg and Canaan from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford 1681. FINIS