Psalm and was against swearing and drunkenness he was made the common scorne as a Puritane and the Bishops Articles and their reproach of Non-conformists occasioned all this in the Rabble against those that were no Non-conformists If you believe not me believe a Conformist Robâ—rt Bolâ—on that saith more of the horrid abuse of Piety by the name of Puritane And since then the same spirit hath used the Name of Presbyterian Schismatick Separatist Fanatick to the like reproach of seriousness and diligence in Religion though not so universally as the name Puritan was Yea if a man had but been for Lectures and such like helps as Arch-Bishop Grindall was for to his cost or for afternoon Sermons or would not read the book for Sunday dancing c. he was worse than suspected and reproached My neighbours that I once was a Teacher to did never presume to preach nor invade the ministerial Office nor do anything but the work of private Christians that is to pray and repeat the Sermon and sing a Psalm but because many ignorant Families that could not read could not do any of this in their houses they joyned with the Neighbours that performed it and this not at time of Publick worship yet because that more than four such met they were distrained on and laid in Gaoles Compare all this and the removal of many hundred families our of the Land heretofore with the consequents of the Bishops zeal against the Priscillians But remember that it is not in my thoughts to lay any of this upon the Bishops that came in since the Impositions and actions aforesaid and had no hand in them and cry not to Magistrates to execute the Laws much less on men of such known moderation as divers of them are nor on the Peaceable Conformists that own none of this 7. And it must be remembred that Martin was but an odd man and seemed singular against the Synods of all the Bishops and a man of little Learning like one of our Trades-men that is Religious And therefore I have wondred that Baronius and Binnius and our Rich. Hooker did so openly decry the faults of the Bishops here and take part with Martin and not rather turn the reproach on him as an unlearned Separatist and Fanatick But his Miracles silenced all reproaches with the rooted esteem which serious Christians will still have for serious Piety when the Reproachers have said and done their worst Else one unlearned Man that went in sordid attire and lived in a small thacht Cottage and lay on the ground and eat worse than our beggars do and pleaded for the Gnosticks persons was liker to have been born down as a mad Fanatick than such men as Dr. Twisse Thomas Gataker Richard Vines Anthony Burges Mr. Hughes Joseph Allen and about 2000 more 8. Lastly Let it be noted that the Cause of St. Martin was his judgement that Heresie and Schisme even as bad as the Gnosticks was not to be punished by the sword but only by Church censures and therefore that the Bishops did wickedly in calling for the Magistrates sword against them for then if the Heretick can get the Magistrate to be for him the same sword may be drawn against the Orthodox And so the Priscillianists once got a great Courtier to be for them and a while turned the sword against their adversaries which occasioned sufferings in Spain and other parts And I wonder how Baronius Binnius or you that plead for the silencing and other afflicting of Non-conformists under the name of Non-toleration and the Churches endeavours for Vniformity can possibly keep out the light which would tell you that we may give you twenty to one in weighing your case and ours with Ithacius and Martins if any impartial hand do hold the ballance Is not your whole cause who cry out for the execution of the Laws and against our Toleration that is that we are not to be endured clean contrary to Martins cause § 75. As to your 3 d. Advice pag. 55. Not to Condemn others for that which themselves have practised I Answer 1. Prove that I or any of my Acquaintance ever practised Ejecting Silencing Ruining men for things unnecessary yea or for greater things Whom did we ever forbid to Preach the truth Whom did we cast out of all Church Maintenance Whom did we imprison 2. If any in New-England had done it is that our doing They that are against Christs Righteousness impated I hope will not joyn with you in imputing to us the sins of those that were no Kin to us and we never saw 3. What a pitiful Case is Mankind in if such an Harangue of confounding words can make them believe that Tolerating or not-Tolerating in Causes vastly different are the same Is it all one to deny men Liberty to seduce men from the essentials of the Faith and to forbid many hundreds to preach Christs Gospel unless they will openly profess that they Assent and Consent to three Books and Covenant never to endeavour the Reforming of the Government of the Church c Might not the Papists have said to us just as you do it is the same thing for us to burn Protestants as Hereticks as for you to expel the Subverters of the Faith But you that are for silencing us all for not consenting to You know what have less excuse for calling it the same thing unless you think Christ and a Liturgy to be same It is therefore fitter to be answered with Compassionate Tears than Words when you say pag. 56. that every one of them would practise the same were it in their Power and think it very justifiable so to do Ans O whither may he rowl that is tumbling down the Hill I was never in Power The Independents once were They used it not as I would have had them But did they or the Presbyterians Eject or Silence one another Is it a good Consequence you would silence a Quaker that denieth the Essentials of Christianity Ergo every one of you were it in your power would Silence Imprison and Ruine them that differ from you in Ceremony Form or Subscription like ours O how incredible are the words of some applauded men I remember that at the Savoy when it was said how some had used the Episcopal Bishop Walton excused and reproved me and said that indeed I had then written against Ejecting or Troubling any honest worthy man for being Episcopal or against the Parliament but that the incompetent and vicious of all sorts equally should be Ejected But saith he did not you write that if the Sword interposed not but meer liberty to Volunteers were granted to all parties the Prclatical Liturgick Church would be like a Tavern or Inne where many sober Persons come but so many others also as would make it a place of no very great inviting Fame I confessed the truth and still confess it § 76. To your 4 th Advice not to make our differences seem greater than they are I
one Church when it is upon unwarrantable cause or reasons If one Church unjustly renounce Communion with another whole Church as no true Church or as Heretical I think that it is done by a whole Church against a whole Church makes it worse But perhaps you mean that for two National Churches to have two Kings is not unlawful No doubt of that But to what purpose is it Or is it that two National Churches may have different Accidents of Worship or Discipline And so may two Diocesan or Parish-Churches in our Nation if the King please at least § 15. You add Which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to govern and reform themselves Ans Have not all Diocesan Churches power to govern and reform themselves Government is of various species Only the King or summa Potestas Civilis hath Power to govern and reform by his Species of Government But every Bishop may govern and reform his Church as a Bishop as every Master may his Family as a Master and every Man himself as a Man It 's a strange Man Family or Church that hath not power to govern and reform it self though not Regal Power Though Kings have Power they have not God's Power and all Power that is Humane is not Regal § 16. Serm. By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their Right of Government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common Ties and Rules of Order and Government Ans 1. And had not those as good right that were not under the Roman Empire as Abasia c. 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exercise their great diversity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worship without right Had not they a right to govern and reform themselves variously as they did 3. Christian Societies are of divers species Do you mean Christian Civil Societies Kingdoms free Cities c. or Churches Or do you take a Christian Kingdom and a Christian Church for the same as the Erastians do If so I suppose half the Conformists will be against you as well as I. At least you must confess that if de nomine a Christian Kingdom quasi tale may be called a Church it is equivocally and that there is a sort of Christian Churches which are of another Constitution Far were the Christian Bishops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that a Church in the common sence was not constituted of another sort of Regent part that had the Power of the Keyes Two species of Governours make two species of the Societies if they are not subordinate but prime constitutive Parts But the Prince and the Pastor are two species well opened among many by Bishop Bilson of Subjection And verily if you Conformists be divided among your selves about the very Constitutive Rector of a Christian Church you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you 4. And what be the common Tyes and Rules of Order which you mean Are these notifying Terms for a Definition 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents 2. There are Rules made by Contract such as Grotius thinks Canons are and Rules made by Governours which are binding Commands or Laws 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governours to be enforced by the Sword and Rules made only by Ecclesiastical Pastors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys Do you mean all these Or which of them 1. All Christian Churches are tied by the common Divine Rule and is not consent to that enough to make a Church 2. Churches of various Nations may be under one Humane Rule of Agreement or Contract 3. The same Princes may give divers Rules about Accidents to the Churches of one Kingdom and also the same Rule for some Accidents to divers Churches under them who differ in other great things And doth agreement in those Accidents do more to make them Oâ— Church than their difference in Integrals to make them many 4. Princes may do as the Roman Emperours long did leave the Bishops in Councils to make their own Rules by consent and make no common Imperial Rule for them Are they ever the less One Church 5. The Roman Empire and Councils both left the several Bishops to make Rules for Liturgies and other Accidents for their several Churches Were they therefore the less one National Church So that I am no more acquainted by your Words what you mean by a whole Church than if you had said nothing There is a whole Diocesâ—â— Church and a whole Parish Church as well as a whole National Church And what the Power is and what the Rule of Order must be whether the Laws of Princes or Prelates and whether about Essential or Integrals or Accidents and what Accidents whether all or many or few and which that must make a Church to be One whole Church you never tell us An Infidel Prince or a Heretick Prince may give the same Rule of Order to his Christian Subjects in a whole Kingdom Is he therefore the constitutive Church-Head Or will you say as your Mr. Rich. Hooker doth That if he be the Head of a Christian Church it is necessary that he be a Christian To tell us of Common Ties and Rules of Order and never tell us what those Ties and Rules are may serve your Ends but not my Edification § 17. But I remember your Irenicum learnedly maintaineth that God hath instituted no one Form of Church-Government as necessary And if so then not a National Church-Form And is it not a whole Church if it be without a Form which not God but Man is the Author of Then God made or instituted no such thing as a whole Church Then it is a humane Creature Then why may not Man make yet more Forms and multiply and make and unmake as he seeth cause and several Countries have several Forms And forma dat nomen esse And if God made not any whole Church we should be acquainted who they be that were not a Church that had Power to make the first Church-Form and who hath the Power ever since and how it is proved and how it cometh to be any great matter to separate from a Church-Form which God never made and whether humane Church-Forms be not essential and constitutive Causes of the Churches and whether every commanded Oath Subscription Declaration Office or Ceremony be an essential part of this Church-Form And there be as many Church-Forms and Species as there be Orders Liturgies and Ceremonies And all these Differences in the same Kingdom constitute so many Schisms and Separations § 18. Do you take all the Christians in the Turkish Empire to be one National Church or not If not then one Head
no mention of lawful in your Definitions 4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane Laws and Rules yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean for else 1. I am of the same National Church that you are yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you and such as you I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do at least 3. But then it can be but sincere not perfect Obedience to God's Laws and Rules which must prove one to be of this Church or else no Man is of it And then you must shew us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink or a Ceremony or Liturgick Form or Diocesan order do cut one off from that Church If yea than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it which we fear But supposing that you mean Humane Laws 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church If Humane Laws were necessary ad bene esse the Christians that I have read and converst with think that they are not necessary to the Being of a Church in sensu famosiore why then should they be in the Definition and only they 6. But the difficulty recurreth as to Humane Laws which of them are necessary to the Being of the Church For your Definition distinguished not The King hath great and excellent Laws which we all conform to Doth not our Conformity to these seem to prove us of the National Church though we conform not to your Formalities and Oaths and Ceremonies Imperfect Obedience serveth to continue men Subjects to the King It is not every Drunkeness or Oath or Fornication much less the miss of a Complement or Ceremony that makes a Man a Rebel or an Outlaw Why then should the refusal of a Prelates Subscription or Formality unchurch a sound and honest Christian 7. And if the humane Laws and Rules which you mention what ever you mean by them be subordinate to God's Laws and so be honest good and obligatory why should they cut off those from the Church which Christ's Laws cut not off yea which Christ receiveth and commandeth us to receive Receive him for God receiveth him and receive him as Christ receiveth us notwithstanding our Infirmities were good reasonings in St. Paul's Judgment which I prefer before any Bishops that I know 8. And a Man of less Acquaintance or Wit than you cannot be ignorant what abundance of Differences there are among your selves I have named you no small number in my â—d Plea some of you are hot against that which is called Arminianism and some hot for it some are for Bishops and Presbyters being of one Order and some of divers all are not of the mind of the Bishop of Hereford that wrote Naked Truth some even Bishops think that the damnatory part of Athanasius's Creed is not approved by Conformity others think that it is all to be approved A multitude such differences there are among your selves And why should not this as much unchurch some of you if it be being under the same Laws that maketh you one Church as the forbearing of a Declaration of Assent and Consent or of a Surplice c. 9. Especially tell us whether the Conformist's difference about the Constitutive Regent Part of the Church of England some being for one species and some for another do not plainly make them to be of two distinct Churches of England and further different from each other than we are from any part We justly say the Papists who are for two species of Soveraigns some for the Pope and some â—â—r a general Council are plainly of two Churches for the regent part is essential And I am sure that one part of the most Eminent Disputers for the Church of England and Conformity say that the King is the Extraneous Civil Governour but the Bishops are the Constitutive Essential Internal Governours of the Church as a Church and that if the Bishops command the use of one Translation Version Metre Liturgie and the King another we are to obey the Bishops and not the King And that the efficient cause of a National Church is the Bishops Agreement among themselves to associate into such a Church And others say that it is the King and his Laws that are the efficient of such a Church and are to be obeyed in matter of the Circumstances of Worship c. before the Bishops Can you prove that this difference between the Conformists about the very Constitutive Regent Power is not greater than Mens differences about a Ceremony or Form and doth not more to make them to be of two Churches 10. If all this confused stir be but about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of Divine Command And if you know it not or dissemble it after I have said so much of it in the first Plea and elsewhere I cannot help that viz. if you will talk publickly against what you know or know not when told because you will not know But I have there largly told you what the Power of Princes about Church matters is which if you will not read I will not repeat 11. Your Words Laws and Rules would induce one to think that you joyned the Kings Laws and the Bishop's Canons together in your meaning as the bond of Uâ—ity If so is it two sorts of Governours by the Swoâ—d and by the Word Magistrates and Pastors which you take for the constitutive regent parts of the Church If so then either in Cooâ—dination and Coalâ—tion or in Subordination The first cannot be that the two Species in Coalition should make one Head unless both were in the Kings as Persona Mixta both Lay and Clergie as some affirm him to be like Melchizâ—deck But this both King and Clergie disown Nor can the second be because a subordinate Power is not essential to the whole body politick but only the supreme And the Magistracy Ministry are coordinate Species both depending immediately on God and Subordinate Mutually only Secundum quid Nor is the Legislative Power in England any other than one which is in the King and Parliament conjunct The Bishops Canons are not Laws Ejusdem Speciei till the King and Parliament make them such If this be your Judgment there are I think but few Conformists of your mind 12. I must Conjecture therefore by your words That the Laws and Rules which you define the Church by are the Laws of the King and Parliament and that it is the Civil Christian Sovereign that you take for the Constitutive Head of that National Church which you plead for or else I know not what to Conjecture And if this be your Meaning I add to what is said 1. Erastians have hitherto been distasted by the Bishops and I
their own only meerly for their singular Opinions And yet it will be hard for you to prove that all the Preachers on Earth must give over Preaching to any such as these What shame Blood and odious Schisines followed this Schismatical Principle while in doubtful Disputations or tolerable differences each party Condemned and Cursed the other I have fully manifested in my Abridgment of Church History VVhile by one Emperour and Council all the Orthodox were Deposed and by another all the Nestorians and by another all the Eutichians and by another all the Monothelites and by another the Corrupticolae and by another the Iconoclasts and so on How few were there un-Cursed and un-Cordemned in the Roman World And this keepeth the Churches in Schism to this day 8. Do not you thus teach the Nonconfâ—rmists to require you with the like and by your own Rule to judg it unlawful for you to Preach They judg indeed that it is lawful to hear you 1. When better 〈◊〉 without greater hurt than benefit 2. To sâ—ew their 〈◊〉 by their Practise viz. that they separate not from you as 〈◊〉 Church nor â—â—ke it for simply unlawful to have 〈…〉 you But they that think Conformity as great a 〈…〉 have told you they fear it would be to them must needs think that it is a fault in those that choose your Assemblies when câ—teris paribus and without greater hurt than good they might have better And must we therefore conclude that it is unlawful for you to Preach Suppose it were â—ut when we had the Kings Licence Or if in the times of Usurpation and thought to leave the Parish Churches tended Culpably to Division It followeth not that it was unlawful for a Bishop to preach in private though when you under the Usurpers kept the Parish Church he had preacht to some of your Flock But here you shew what your Labour tendeth to viz. To prove it Unlawful for us to Preach that you may perswade Us to give over If God will I shall elsewhere give you an Account of the Reasons of our Preaching and Answer what You and Others say against it And therefore shall say but little of it here But I am heartily sorry that you are come to such a Desire That you had rather so many Hundred such Ministers were Silenced than suffered to Preach without your Covenants and Ceremonies That you no more regard the Needs of the People that abound in Ignorance Carelesness and Vice nor observe no more the Power of Sin nor the great Want of Help to such Parishes as your own and too many in the Land that have need on other Accounts O! How dreadful and unsearchable are the Judgments of God That when so many Hundreds were Forbidden to Preach the Gospel the Plague must first give them some Degree of Liberty and the Flames continue it the next Year and the Kings Clemency after and Horrid Popish Treason next divert their Prosecutors while the Laws and Bishops all the while forbad them Even when the Parish-Preachers fled from the Plague and it was dying Men that the Nonconformists Preach't to And when the Churches were Burnt down and the People had no Priest or Place to go to for their own way of Worship yet neither Laws nor Bishops consented to our Preaching And such Men as Dr. Stillingfleet also come in to engage their Wit Reputation Industry and Conscience in the Silencing Design O! What Cause have we all to VVatch and Pray That We enter not into Temptation and to dread the Spiritual Judgments of God Remember Lot ' s Wife was a needful Warning A Solomon that is Numbred with the Wisest Men may be seâ— up as a Frightful Monument to bid us Take heed lest we Revolt And I take it for a greater Injury to us to perswade us to Silence our selves than to perswade the Magistrate only to Silence Banish or Imprison us For so to Suffer from another is not our Sin But Sacrilegiously to break our Ministerial Vow and forsake the Calling which we were Solemnly Voweâ— to and this while the Necessity of Souls cry for Help is a Sin which few Men are so bad as to perswade us to with open Face without some pious fraudulent Pretence § 38. Serm. p. 20. I do not confound bare Suspending Communion in some particular Rites which Persons do modestly Scruple and using it in what they judge to be Lawful with either total or ordinary Forbearance of Communion in what they judge to be Lawful and proceeding to the Forming of Separate Congregations i. e. under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the Established Religion alloweth And this is the present Case of Separation which I intend to consider and to make the Sinfulness and the Mischievousness appear Answ I am sure I am one that you expresly Charge as of this Number and I can best speak for my self and those of my Acquaintance 1. Is it true that I totally or ordinarily forbear 2. What mean you by Forming a Congregation If their Presence be my Forming them it is but because I speak to them For I neither Perswade nor Drive them to be there But if you mean Forming them into a Distinct Church and becoming their Pastor I was never Related as a Pastor to any Church but Kiderminster nor have these Twenty Years been a Pastor to any but borrowed other Mens Pulpits to Preach a Lecture â—o such as say they need it 3. Your word Separate I have Examined before You Separate from My Auditory and more than Separate and I Separate not from Yours Who then is the Separatist 4. All the Parishes about you and the Bishop of Ely in your Parish that judge it Lawful to Hear you yet are Absent from you and so are some Nonconformists that think they must Preach themselves and cannot be in Two Places at once Is that Separating 5. The French and Dutch Churches do all that which you here describe as Sinful and Mischievous only they have more Leave than we 6. Is all the Matter that We are Teachers which the Law alloweth not So were the Orthodox under the Nestorian Eutychian Monothelite c. Princes And so I have proved That the Christian Religion hath been much propagated in the VVorld 7. VVhat are the Rules which we go by which the Established Religion alloweth not Doth it not allow the Sacred Scriptures Or Have you proved That I go by any other Rule If the Act of Vniformity or the Canons be your Religion Do not they allow God's Word Or if they be your Rules omitting that Is not Vsing another Yet those that do joyn in Churches under Chosen Pastors when I do not I shall not Condemn till I hear their Reasons They may have more Cause than I have § 39. Serm. p. 21. They Vnanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of our Church Answ 1. And yet are you one that would have them all Silenced 2. But this is not true You name
They are Puritans Presbyterians Fanaticks Separatists Schismaticks Hereticks Rogues is effectual arguing and convincing and some preachers it seems take their hearers for such Judges But men will be men and reason will be reason and truth will be truth and innocency will be innocency and pride and slander will shame their Authors more than the slandered when you and I are dead and gone § 50. Serm. p. 30. But suppose the first Churches were barely Congregational by reason of the small number of believers at that time yet what Obligation lies upon us to disturb the peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant State And here is mentioned the community of Goods washing Feet and then They believe that the first civil Government was appointed by God himself over families Do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdomes to bring things back to their first institution c. Ans 1. We call them not barely Congregational but associated for personal Communion If all the Kingdom had but one Bishop that were another Species of Government and Communion than Parochial 2. If one like you should plead for turning all the families in London into one and making only one Common Father or Master of a families who should send Stewards to every house of his own making to give them their victuals he only being the proper Governour and this man should plead as you do that it is disturbing the peace of the great family to reduce them to their Infant State by restoring particular families more wit or reputation than yours would not keep his cause from shame Or if he pleaded that all the Schools in a Diocess or many 100 or 1000 should have but one Schoolmaster with Ushers that have no power to take in or put out or use the Rod and that to retrive this to the Infant State is seditious the reason of mankind would shame his reasoning And when men know what Pastoral Guidance is the case here will be as plain 3. Our Reason for desiring not the Primitive paucity of Christians but the Primitive form of Christ is 1. Because Christ by his Apostles instituted it Mr. Thorndike once spake well to that 2. Because we can prove that he was faithful in forming his house and Church as Moses was in forming that of the Jews 3. Because we never heard it proved that man had power to alter what Christ by his Spirit in the Apostles founded neither having their infallibility nor commission 4. At least we think it is the surest way to hold to that which we are sure God setled till we can prove that men have power to change the very form 4. Teach us what to say to the Papists when they shall accordingly say to us what though there was no Vniversal Pastor in the Primitive times what though many things in discipline and worship be changed since why must you disturb the peace of the Church by reducing things to the infant State what though there were no Cardinals nor General Councils of Prelates to make universal Lawes for the Churches what though the Sacrament was given in both kinds and there were no private Masses or prayers for the dead must the Church be still in infancy What though the Apostles instituted the Lords day for publick worship and holy Communion may not the Church put that down and set up one day of her making once a month or year instead of it But I will not be one of those that will fight for man against God for I know who will overcome If you can prove that Christ gave your Church authority to pull down the Church Offices and form which he appointed and set up another and call it the Churches growth or emendation I will obey them But I have elsewhere asked who they were that made your new Church form If the first Church of Gods making it was only the universal headed by Christ and particular Churches for personal Communion if these made the new forms tell us who when and by what power and why they may not unmake them if there be cause and whether the efficient Church be not better then the effected as the Parent than the Child If you say that Bishops of Parishes did 〈◊〉 by consent in Asia or elsewhere above a thousand years ago how come we in England to be bound by them If you say that Princes were the makers of the new Church Species 1. Heathen Princes did it not 2. The Bishops will give you little thanks if you grant not that it was done before there were any Christian Princes to do it 3. One Prince cannot make Laws for anothers Country 4. Prove that ever Christ authorized Princes to change the Constitution of the Churches instituted by him and make new ones above his form except making officers for the Circa Sacra or variable accidents 5. And what Princes do they have power to undo And it concerneth us to enquire much more then about ceremonies how far this power of man extendeth May they make as many new Church Species as they please Why then may they not make as many forms as there are Kingdomes if not an universal Pope by the consent of most 5. But that which the Papists take for the Churches growth from Infancy the Protestants take for its gradual depravation And have written many treatises to shew when and how such corruptions were introduced And the forementioned book of Paulus Sarpi Servita lately translated tells us by what degrees much of that evil did spring up which some take to be the Churches Man-hood and the amending of the defects of Christs institutions 6. And you that wonder that I know not what you mean by the Church of England may next wonder that I know not what it is that you call the Protestant Religion In my full satisfaction I have told you that I mean by it simple Christianity expressed in the sacred Scriptures as the Recorded rule with the rejection of all humane additions which suppose the Scriptures imperfect as to their regulating use But if you suppose that men may without any Scripture proof of authority take down and change the Church Species which Christ by his Apostles made and make new ones instead and thus add to Christs Laws equal yea superior and derogating Laws of their own this is not that Protestant Religion which I am of and therefore I intreat you to define what it is you so call 7. When you have as well proved the very essential form of the first Churches to have been instituted but pro tempore as a mutable thing as we can prove the like of washing Feet and community of Goods we will submit And so we will when you have proved that God that made families made not Cities or Republicks that is did not institute civil Government of many families or that men who diversifie the forms of Republicks may overthrow families or their proper power Yea and that God hath
contrary Translations Versions Times Places Liturgies and modes of worship the Bishops are to be obeyed before the King and the other saith the King is to be obeyed before the Bishops To omit abundance of greater differences than some would perswade men is between us and them § 62. Serm. And I must needs say I never saw any Cause more weakly defended no not that of Polygamy and Anabaptisme than that of those who allow it to be Lawful to joyn in Communion with us and yet go about to vindicate the separate Meetings among us from the guilt of a sinful Separation Ans 1. I have long observed when some men pass a sentence on others and call them by reproachful names it ordinarily more â—ruly sheweth what the speaker is than what the Person or Cause is that he speaks of For it is so natural for the streams to be like the Spring and the fruit like the Tree and the mouth to speak from the abundance of the heart that one may much conjecture what the Speaker is by his words But what the Cause and Man is that he speaketh of you can little know while the speaker oft little knoweth it himself or would not have another know it Neither your confidence nor mine will determine a wise Reader § 63. To pag. 36. I Answer 1. Your Text is so clear and full a Confutation of your Sermon that it 's hard to know how a mind not strongly prejudiced could have preached such a Sermon or pleaded for the silencing of so many such Ministers from such a text Yea or can need any more to confute you than to read your Text 1. It is supposed that it was All that had attained to the truth of Christianity that must walk by the same rule 2. It was a Divine Rule then known 3. They were to bear with each other in loving Communion while they grew up to more If this condemn not making and imposing new humane unnecessary Rules containing that which multitudes of impartial Conscionable men as wise as their Reproachers cannot excuse from much heynous sin and silencing and excommunicating all that obey them not and when they forbid them Communion call them Separatists I do despair of understanding sence And to pag. 37. We come as near you as we can in Conscience and we know our own Conseiences better than you do But whether you condemn not your selves as Separatists in denying communion where we preach as if you only were the Church and any that want but your Liturgy were none Yea when we had the License of the King unbyassed men will be able to discern § 64. Serm pag. 37. But why then is this kept as such a mighty secret in the Breasts of their Teachers Why do they not Preach it to them in their Congregations Is it for fear they should have none left to Preach to That is not to be imagined of Mortified and Conscientious men Is it lest they should seem to condemn themselves while they Preach against Separation in a Separate Congregation This I confess looks odly and the tenderness of a mans mind in such a Case may out of meer shamefacedness keep him from declaring a truth which flies in his face while he speaks it Ans 1. Alas you shew us that some men perceive not when it flyeth in their faces Reader hence take heed of Believing words of Reproach against Adversaries when Interest and Sideing hath made men partial Would you think that all this intimated silence were an untruth against publick Testimony 1. I have many and many times declared in print what he intimateth that we dare not Preach And is not Printing a far more Publick declaration than speaking it in one Room 2. When I began to Preach at St. James's I read a Profession to the Congregation openly that I preacht not there as to a separate Church but as in concord with all Christs Church on Earth for the necessity of the People that had not many of them heard a Sermon many a year the Parish having 40000 if not 60000 Souls more than could hear in the Parish Church 3. I built a Chapel by money partly begg'd and partly to my greater loss than I will mention that I might but have helpt those needy Souls for nothing For the second Sermon one that Preacht for me that had suffered imprisonment for the Kings Cause was sent to Gaol to my great Trouble and Charge And when I might not use it said One in Power Though you would use the Common-Prayer there I gave it up to the use of the Parish and take it thankfully of Dr. Lloyd that he will there teach his People 4. I have many and many a time in the Pulpit openly Preacht against Separation even what he now desireth 5. Not past a Fortnight before his Sermon I Preacht near him at the Verge of his Parish in my Lecture two whole Sermons of it on Luk. 15. the Case of the two Sons shewing that there are three notable sorts of Separation 1. The Persecutors that forcibly scatter the Flock as the Papists by dividing sinful impositions 2. The Prophane Separatist like the Prodigal who had rather be at the Tavern the Play-house the Whore-house c. than at Church 3. The passionate peevish honest Christian as in the Text He was angry and would not come in Here I shewed by many reasons how faulty and hurtful this mistaking passionate Separation is And I took that occasion to give them many Reasons why I communicate with the Parish Church my self and Separate not from them and I told them my judgment that they that suffer meerly for not-hearing or not-communicating thrice a year as the Law requireth cannot justifie their Cause without some extraordinary reason if they live in a Parish that hath a Minister capable of that Office But I did not malignantly equal the Son that had long served his Father and not transgressed his Commandment with his Brother in his Prodigal desertion of his Father But on the next words His Father went out to him and intreated him to come in I shewed that Gods Condescention and Method in satisfying his mistaken passionate Children should direct Ministers and others how they also should deal with such And that violence instead of loving Condescension reasoning and necessary forbearance of such Infirmities sheweth 1. That such consider not the corruption of Humane Nature and how bad all mâ—n are 2. They know not what need of Forbearance they have themselves nor how liable they are to Error and to Sin 3. They imitate not God our Father and Saviour and know not what manner of Spirit they are of 4. They have not due acquaintance with the preciousness of Gods Grace and Image that cannot perceive it if there be but such an Errour or Passion to obscure it 5. They consider not that they also may be Tempted and what Temptation may do even with upright Souls 6. They are strangers to the Pastoral office They should
that by the same Rule is meant the Tradition and Custom of the Vniversal Church 10. And some that it is the Canons of the Bishops in General Councils and under them in National or Provincial Councils 11. And some tell us that the Rule of Christian concord is Obedience to the Bishops of all the World or Universal Church who are a College Governing not only divisim per partes in their several Precincts but unitedly as One Regent College ordinarily per literas formas and by General Councils when they sit 12. And some tell us that it is the Law or Will of the Civil Christian Magistrate which is this Rule As to these four last Rules we must put in our Exceptions As to the 9 th the Traditions and Customs then in use were Apostolical Institutions and so are coincident with some of the former But other Traditions and Customs we take not for this Rule And as to the tenth we give Councils though wrongfully called General their due honour as we do to inferiour Councils and every particular Pastor in his place but take not this for the Rule here mentioned And as to the 11th we know of no such Government in being And as to the 12th it was not then existent and therefore could not be that meant in the Text But we take our selves bound to obey Magistrates as we have elsewhere at large explained and professed In short either you think it is a Divine or a Humane Rule or Law which is here meant or both If a Divine we shall not differ from you of any thing unless it be of the meaning of it If a Humane either it is an act of true Power received from God or not If not you will grant us that it obligeth us not as this Rule in question If yea then we agree that we are to obey it So that all that will be useful to our Conviction will be 1. That you prove the Persons authorized to their Office and of our Magistrates there is no doubt 2. And that they have authority to make all the Canons and Laws which you call the Rule And without this your labour is all lost to us § 10. But which of all these it is that you take for the Rule meant in your Text we must conjecture 1. You well say p. 11. It was such a Rule which they very well knew which they had given them before Therefore it was none that was not then in being but to be made by Bishops afterward And p. 14. you seem to include the Canon made Acts 15. whatever the sense of this Text is we willingly also stand to that and to the Holy Ghosts decision that nothing be imposed but necessary things And p. 15. I find you say that the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing Separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his directions And this is all that I can find of your determination what is that Rule And if Peace be the Rule we all agree with you in declaiming against the violation of it But is there no more in your Application § 11. I remember it is said in the Life of Joh. Bugenhagius Pomeranus the Pastor of the Church in Wittenberge and the Presbyter that ordained the Bishops and Presbyters of Denmark and many other places how much John Frederick the Elector of Saxony was pleased to hear him open the Reasons why Magistrates have power to make Laws but not Pastors armatum 〈◊〉 potestatem politicam authoritate condendi leges non pugnantes cum Decalogo de his traditam se verissimum praeceptum necesse est obedire propter conscientiâ—n sed pastoribus expresse prohiberi condere proprias leges eum dicatur Neâ—o 〈◊〉 arguat in cibo in potu nec posse hanc libertatem ullius creaturae authoritate tolli But I had rather stretch my Obedience to the utmost consistent with Conscience and Obedience to God than speak for any needless Liberty § 12. It is certain that by the same Rule is not meant 1. Any Rule that tied Christians to subscribe or declare that there is nothing in our three Books Liturgy Ordination and Articles contrary to the Word of Godâ— For none of them were then extant nor are they 200 years old 2. Nor any Rule that tied them to any one humane Liturgy which all the Churches iâ— the Nation must agree in For there was none such 3. Nor was it any Rulâ— that imposed on them any dubious unnecessary Opinions Covenants or Practices nor in a word our Conformity or any like it This is easily proved 1. Because the Rule which they were all to wall by was somewhat then existent 2. It was a Divine Rule 3. It was thâ— which all Christians were to have concord in But experience telleth us that all Christians that is that consent to the Essentials of Christianity â—â—â—ver had nor can have their Concord in any of the fore-mentioned Conformity as I have proved in my Book of Concord § 13. We will go therefore no further than your Text for the Terms 〈◊〉 our Agreement and for our Defence against your Accusation Whatâ—â— you will prove to us by any such evidence as should convince a Man of reason 〈◊〉 impartiality to have been THE RVLE which the Apostle did here mean 〈◊〉 bid all that are Christians walk by we earnestly desire to agree thereto Anâ— we will joyn with you against any that refuse it It will be a way more coâ—gruous to your Function and cheaper to your Consciences to condescend 〈◊〉 these Terms and prove to us what this same Rule was than to tell the Magistrates that it is no sin not to endure us § 14. Pag. 16 17 18 19. you come to tell us what Separation it is noâ— which you speak of viz. not of the Separation or distinct Communion of 〈◊〉 Churches from each other c. Answ You know it 's like your self what 〈◊〉 mean by these words if you would have us know it I must crave yoâ— Answer to these Questions Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and distinct Communion the same thing 〈◊〉 divers Qu. 2. What distinction of Communion is it that you mean When there are 〈◊〉 many things which may distinguish 1. Communion in distinct places you take 〈◊〉 for Separation 2. Nor Commnion under distinct Presbyters or Bishops 3. Therefore I suppose neither under distinct Princes or Aristocracies in Cities as such 4. Nor under distinct Laws meerly as such of the same Prince 5. Nor distinct in allowed or indifferent accidents Why any of these should be called Separation I know not unless as the word doth signifie but Diversity or Distance Q. 3. Do you take Separation here in the same sence as before and after or Equivocally If Equivocally why did you not tell us what you here meant besides the difference of Subjects If univocally then Q. 4. Is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from