just and charitable as to let us know your Reasons that if they be sound we may see Cause to alter ours I hope you will not say Then was then and now is now And can you now assure us that you shall not alter your present Judgment once again within twenty Years We read of Bishops that have cried peccavimus again and again and of Councils doing and undoing again and sometimes in less than twenty Years But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the point of Separation which is the present Business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon which will appear by these Particulars in it If by Separation you mean a Separation from any Church upon any slight trivial unnecessary Cause as you define Schism Irenic p. 113. I am not for such a Separation But perhaps some may tell you that if you separate from such Assemblies as Mr. B. c. when you might have occasional Communion with them you do it upon far less Cause than many separate from those of yours where they are required to joyn in Practices more to be suspected If by Separation you mean any assembling for the Worship of God otherwise than according to your establisht Rule and so condemn the Assemblies of meer Non-conformists that are not of Schismatical Principles yea even their occasional Meetings and those kept off from the times of publick Worship in the Parochial Congregations I doubt not but the Lawfulness of such Assemblies is and shall be evidently proved from that Book Preface p. 72 73. Which will appear by these Particulars in it 1. Irenic p. 123. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such Practices which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are new Churches when men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from that Form they separate from 3. P. 124. As to things in the Judgment of the Primtive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Laws of God and in matters of meer Order and Decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private Judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to sub mit to the Determination of the Church Allow but these three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Ad Trianos ventum est I hope now we shall come to something Methinks we have been too long beating abâ—ut the Bush. And yet I am kept off a while seeing you taking up a good part of two Pages to no purpose unless it be to perswade your Readers that I was unwilling to take notice of that which you cannot but grant I do take notice of viz. that you distinguish betwixt Nâ—n-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practices in a Church and entring into distinct Societies for Worship And it were strange if I had over-look'd or was unwilling the Readers should see these Conclusions of yours when you cannot but say I there cite the very Pages Rector of Sutton p. 30. A nd I can say I gave them what I thought might seem material Thâ—y will â—ind but two Conclusions in Irenicum your second Conclusion here is there but an Explication of the first And what I granted you is all you can make of them to your purpose here And did I not acknowledg again and again there that the Primitive and Reformed Churches were two of your Iudges And what Advantage you will get by that or any of these Conclusions we shall now see Me-thinks I have this Advantage that you here own these three Conclusions When you would have me to allow them it is to be supposed that you allow them your self Yea you say of them These are most pâ—rtinent and material Therefore I shall go over them again Conclusion 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such Practices which they suspect to be unlawfull Here 1. I urge you with what you say Irâ—nic p. 117. Withdrawing Communion from a Church in unlawful or suspected Things doth not lay Men under the Guilt of Schism You say Men may lawfully deny Communion with a Church in such things I say Men cannot lawfully have Communion in such things As King Iames on the Lord's Prayer pag. 44. It is a good and sure Rule in Theology in matters of God's Worship quod dubitas nè fâ—ceris So Hales Miscel. of Schism p. 210. Not only in Reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no Release Cautâ—shmi cujusque praeceptum quod dubitas nè feceris And Mr. R. Hooker Preface to his Eceles Polit. â— 6. Not that I judg it a thing allowable for Men to observe those Laws which in their Hearts they are stedfastly pâ—rswaded to be against the Law of God What he says further there of Men being bound to suspend their Perswasion in matters determined by Governours which they have not demonstrative Reasons against you very well take off Irenic p. 118 119. No true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Governours c. And certainly it is neither in a Mans Power to suspend his own Perswasion or lay aside his Doubts ad libitum noâ— is he allowed to act against his own Judgment and Conscience though mis-informed That Man sinneth without doubt who ventureth on Practices he suspects to be sinful though in themselves the Practices be lawful What the Apostle saith Rom 14. 5 14 23. puts the matter out of dispute Now to joyn in Common-Prayer is an unlawful or suspected Practice to some They take it to be polluted with Superstition Perhaps they take Communion herein to be a sinful Symbolizing with the Papists for what King Edward 6 and King Iames said of it And if you should tell them our Service-book is reformed it is possible some may now reply How can you say so Will you blast the Credit of and cast a Reproach upon our first Reformers Again baptizing with the Sign of the Cross and kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament as it were before the Sacramental Elements are suspected unlawful Practices to many And thus they are barred from Communion with you in Sacraments And therefore you had no Reason to slight others modest Expressions here as you do pag. 333. They judg they think they esteem them unlawful and they cannot be satisfied about them Though you are far short of answering all that hath been said to prove some things enjoyned unlawful yet suppose a Man ignorant erring and mistaken here not without Fault notwithstanding he must suspend his own Act till he be better informed and satisfied about it And here I would again mind you of those significant Expressions Irenic pag. 119. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments
you cannot well plead the Cause of our Separation from Rome without pleading something for Dissenters But to return to your Impartial Account p. 209. You say Violation of the Unity of the Church where there is no sufficient Reason to justify it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. All which returns upon your selves if the Arâ—h-Bishop's Words may take place And consider further seriously whether there be any sufficient Reason to justifie the pressing and imposing of those things which might lawfully be forborn when the imposing of them will certainly cause a Violation of the Churches Unity and Peacâ— Yet this is a thing you take no notice of unless it be to justify it As p. 76. The Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Indâ—pendents Aâ—â—baptists and Quakers And pag. 59. So it is impossible for them to answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Now lay these together and what follows but that as much is to be pleaded for the English Ceremonies and other things imposed which the Non-câ—nformists stick at as can be pleaded for the baptizing of Infants or against Re-baptization and I may add or against the way of the Quakers In the Fifty Queries concerning Infants Right to Baptism I set that down last which â— desired they would specially observe Scil. Whether the Anabaptist's Schism be not worse than their simple Opinion And whether it be not desireable and possible that some Way be found out and Terms laid down in which good and sober Men on both sides might agree and hold Communion as Christians concerning which something is proposed there from Mr. B. to others Consideration This the Author of the Anti-Queries took little notice of which engaged me to mind him of it again in my Reply p. 25 26. And yet I have met with no other Answer from him but that he is loth at present to give an Answer to it intreating all his Friends to take it into Consideration because it is a matter of Moment and common Concern T. G's Controversy c. epitomised p. 64. From whence I conclude if such Terms of Moderation were offered they would be hard put to it scarce know what to say for a standing off and denying to have Communion with Christians of a different Perswasion but they would have enough to say against your Terms and that from your self and not only in your Irenicum but in your Rational Account p. 209. It is a very necessary Enquiry what the cause of the distance is and where the main Fault lies and it being acknowledge that there is a possibility that Corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth Men to communicate with a Church in all those they will say in any Corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to Reason that the cause of the Breach must lie there where the Corruptions are owned and imposed as Conditions of Communion c. I should have hoped that at least you would have granted the conditions put upon Ministers to be very hard yet I find nothing but a deep silence here Tho Mr. Cheny says I am satisfied that it is in it â—elf a great and `dreadful Sin to silence the Non-conformists It seems here is a provoking Sin which you was willing to overlook tho once in your Sermon p. 20. you were very near it 6. Do you speak Impartially p. 378 379. when you tell us you wonder that none of us have taken any care to put any stop to Separation or to let you know where you may fix and see an end of it what Scruples are to be allowed and what not I will say nothing for those who are better able to speak for themselves but for my self I thought I had told you plainly and sufficiently out of your Irenicum if you will not be offended that I call it yours where I would have you fix Let Christians stand upon the same terms now as they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Do not add other conditions of Church-Communion than Christ hath done As Rector of Sutton p. 6 7. See also p. 59. If you make no new Terms and yet others will separate from you still the Sin is theirs but if indeed you add other Terms then beware that you be not found the Schismaticks Do not turn me off here as you do Mr. Baxter's Way of Concord You â—â—â—not justly say we go on in impracticable Notions here or dividing Principles When you have that Word Preface p. 38. As tho he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth You forgot that others might as well apply it to the Rector of Sutton for publishing his Irenicum And I hope you will not deny but we are backt with great Authority when you consider what King Iames tells Cardinal Du Perron by the Pen of Isaac Causabon which Mr. Baxter takes notice of Direct p. 752. His Majesty thinketh that for Concord there is no nearer way than diligently to separate things necessary from the unnecessary and to bestow all our labour that we may agree in the things necessary and that in things unnecessary there may be place given for Christian Liberty A Golden Sentence And there is nothing that can be proved necessary but it must be either expresly taught or commanded in the Word of God or deduced thence by necessary Consequence And that of the Lord Bacon Essay 3. is considerable who for the true placing the Bonds of Vnity would have Points fundamental and of Substance in Religion truly discerned and distinguished from Points not meerly of Faith but of Opinion Order or good Intention And Chillingworth is full of such impracticable Notions if they deserve to be so called p. 197. He that could assert Christians to that Liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs to Truth a most Heroieal Service And seeing the over-valuing of the Differences among Christians is one of the greatest Maintainers of the Schisme of Christendom c. p. 198. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter of playing the Pope it is for doing it too much and not too little Take away these Walls of Separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of Men for not subscribing to the Words of Men as the Words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no Man Master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no Title to it and let them that in their Words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their Actions In a Word take away Tyranny which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors and Superstitions and Impieties I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full
is certainly Superior to that of the greatest Bishops and Councils that ever were described the Office and how Persons are to be qualified for it And when such have been called to the Office while they give no just Cause for Suspension and Degradation Christ looks on them as his Ministers still and accordingly his Will is that Men own them as such And they that despise them may therein â— in a Degree be guilty of despising Christ. Chemnitius Loc. com par 3. p. 136. col 1. speaks fully to the purpose thus As God alone properly claims to himself the Right of Calling even when the Call is mediate so also properly it belongs to God â—o remove one from the Ministry Therefore so long as God suffers in the Ministry his Servant teaching rightly and living blamelesly Ecclesia non habet Potestatem alienum Servum amovendi The Church hath no Power Authority of putting away another's Servant But when be no further edifies either by his Doctrine or Life but destroys the Church then God himself removes him 3. If what you have said formerly remark'd in Rector of Sutton p. 29. hold true and you have not hitherto disproved the same then you must yield the present Non-conformist Ministers have not been suspended and cast out for any just Cause And may I not also add If Clement say true as you cite him here Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 314 315. Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith wel-pleased discharging their Office with Humility Quietness Readiness and Unblameableness and being Men of a long time of good Report we think such Men cannot justly be cast out of their Office Though in the heat of Disputation your Opinion seems to be changed of Persons as well as Things yet I hope in cool Blood you would not deny but such a Character agrees to many Non-conformists that you should think they cannot justly be cast out of Office And I doubt not but you are well acqainted with that old Canon That no Bishop or Priest should be taken into another's Place if the former were blameless 4. If still they are in Office as Ministers of Christ are they not obliged to serve him in that Office as they have a Call and Opportunity See again Rector of Sutton pag. 29 34 75. They must not neglect the Gift that is in them Sad was the Doom of the vnprofitable Servant that buried his Talent The Teacher must wait on Teaching I suppose all Christ's Ministers are concerned in that solemn Charge 2. Tim. 4. 1 2. And they are to take heed to the Ministry which they have received even though Men forbid them You abhor and detest such Principles as to set Man's Laws above God's Laws And though they be threatned with Persecution for it when they are persecuted in one City they may flee to another Mat. 10. 23. Yet must they not run away from their Work but be carrying that on in other Places where they come according to their Ability and Opportunity Prudence directed them Ioh. 20. 19. to meet privately there at Evening keeping the Door shut for fear of the Jews yet meet they would If Ministers be driven from their former Flocks yet are they Men in Office and preach as such not only as gifted Men in what other place soever God by his Providence calls them to bestow their Pains They are Teachers by Office to more than their proper Charges even to as many as they have a Providential Call hic nunc to preach unto So it appears Men cannot lawfully silence Christ's Ministers without just Cause or if they do that such Decree and Sentence does not oblige Conscience I have it from Mr. B. Church History p. 446 447. The Dominican Inquisitor that reasoned the matter with the Bohemians would have silenced excommunicated Priests bound to cease preaching but had the wit to add if silenced for a reasonable Cause and to confess Sententia injuste lata à suo judice si Errorem inducat vel Peccatum mortale afferet nec timenda est nec tenenda The old Bohemian Reformers held as Ibid. p. 446. Every Priest and Deacon is bound to preach God's Word freely or he sinneth mortally and after Ordination he should not cease no not when excommunicated because he must obey God rather than Man I see in Carranza fol. 437. It was one of the Articles for which the Council of Constance sentenced I. Wickliffe's Bones to be digg'd up and burnt Art 13. They that leave off to preach or hear God's Word for Men's Excommunication are excommunicate And you that have greater store of Authors and choice Books then such as I must ever hope to have the Advantage ofâ— you I say I doubt not have what others add they are excommunicate and in the day of Iudgment shall be judged Traitors to Christ. And these were among the Articles for which I. Husse was condemned Carranza â—ol 440. Art 17 18. A Priest of Christ living according to his Law and having the Knowledg of the Scripture and a working to edify the People ought to preach notwithstanding any pretended Excommunication And every one that comes to the Office of a Priâ—st hath a Command to preach and ought to obey that Command notwithstanding Excommunication And these you know were before our oldest Non-conformists 5. But now Sir that I may come home to you If Ministers were bound to cease preaching to lay aside their Ministry when silenced unjustly then at what a miserable Loss might the Church be left And if you could scarce satisfy your selves to see her at such a loss we may very well hope Christ would not have her left at such a Loss His care of his Church no doubt is greater than yours would be Because you seem not to take any notice of what I said Rect. of Sutton p. 28. give me leave here to mind you of it again What a woful Case the Church was in if she might be deprived of all or the greatest and soundest part of her Ministers at Man's pleasure And further pag. 43. I put a Case shewing that if what you would have be admitted it might fare a great deal the worse with the Church under Orthodox Bishops and Governours than if they were grand Hereticks But to come to the Point I aim at You know when almost two thousand Ministers were cut off from their publick Ministerial Work as it were in one day by a Law of Conformity Now let us suppose the Minds of Rulers to change which is not naturally impossible and put the case that your Conformity should be made as great a Crime as Non-conformity hath been and yet the true Religion acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned as you say here pag. 148. â— 6. Though I find Mr. Phil. Nye who is a very considerable Person with you Preface p. 27. In his Beams of Light pag. 192. saying Let the same Impositions and Penalties be
Instance he gives there is convincing If a Souldier knew his Captain his Leader was for opening the Gates to the Enemy and yet followed such a Leader keeping Rank and Order so unseasonably he would shew himself a Traitor rather than a faithful Souldier The Disciples would seem to have been for Order there as you are when they were hindring Christ's Service Mar. 9. 38. Luk. 9. 49. Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbad him because he followeth not us Now I heartily wish even for your own sake from that true and due Respect I owe to you that you would more impartially examine what you have been doing and reflect upon your self consider seriously whether you are not forbidding and condemning some as faithful Followers of Christ as your self even in their serving Christ and serving their Generation What are your Thoughts of such as Iospeh and Richard Alleyn with divers others that might be named who kept to their ministerial Work and as you say of Father Latimer never repented them of it If now they have that Well-come home Well done good and faithful Servants enter into the Ioy of your Lord. How far are they above all your Censures And me-thinks it deserves Men's serious Consideration whether they pray as they ought Thy Kingdom come or whether indeed they act not against their own Prayers who indeavour to hinder the preaching of the Gospel a means of enlarging and building up God's Kingdom And as you declare to the World p. 394. you are one that believes a day of Iudgment to come which I would not once question I beseech you Sir think well of what that well disposed Gentleman as you call him says I think gravely and piously Letter out of the Country pag. 38 39. Let us bring the Cause before our Supream and Final Iudg. And bethink your self whether of these two things he will be most likely to have regard unto the saving of Souls which He bought with his Blood or the preserving inviolate certain Humane Institutions and Rules confessed by the Devisers of them not to be necessary c. And so much of your first Conclusion and mine Your second Conclusion follows Preface p. 73. 2. Those are new Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from that Form they separate from Here 1. I cannot but look on you as very unfortunate unhappy in this Cause you have espoused How oft do you greatly expose your self that what you urge agianst your Brethren may justly be retorted on you So here how plain is it that you look but on one side which as I remember you suppose those that differ from you to be faulty in Had you not one Thought that if you owned such a Conclusion as this I should be likely to tell you you had spoiled your Cause Nihil quod nimis satis that by proving too much you would in effect prove nothing of that you aim at Should you not have considered what an Argument you here put into the Mouths of the Dissenters against the National Church of England against Diocesan Churches and against Parochial Churches too 1. Will not many be ready to tell you that it follows undeniably from this Conclusion of yours that you have made the National Church of England and the Diocesan Churches therein New unlawful Churches because under divers peculiar Officer governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church as from other Reformed Churches If those are new unlawful Schismatical Churches with you that are under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical truly Primitive Churches as I suppose it must come to that Primum in unoquoque genere est Regula Mensura reliquorum what work have you made here What an heavy Task and hard Province have you taken on you Can you ever prove that there are no Officers Laws Rules and Orders in your Church different from what were in the true Primitive Church Can you ever find all these Officers Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Deans Chancellors c down to Apparitors in the Primitive Church Will you undertake to find there all our Ecclesiastical Canons even Rules for kneeling in the Act of Receiving for signing with the Cross in Baptism for excluding the Parents and setting God-Fathers and God-Mothers in their stead with a Rule for peculiar appropriate Vestments c. To say here that though you have peculiar Officers Laws and Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church yet you do not own your selves to be a Church separate from that Primitive Church will not bring you off For this many Dissenters likewise say they separate not from you but hold Communion with you in all that is necessary and further have more Local Presential Communion with you than you can pretend to have with the Primitive Church Yet you will have their Assemblies separate Churches while they worship God by any other Rule than yours though their Worship be as agreeable to the Scripture-Rule And yet can you or any mortal Man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolical primitive Church Again it will as little help you to say That you speak of particular Congregations or Societies for Worship For 2. Do you not here make your Parochial Congregations also New Churches If the Primitive Church had not your Liturgy were not bound to the use of your Book of Common-Prayer then you cannot deny but you are under a somwhat different Rule And are there not some Parishes that have only Deacons to officiate And may I not be bold to tell you that you can never prove your Deacons the same with those in the Churches erected by the Apostles According to P. Paul Sarpi of matters Benefic N. 27. Deacons were Ministers of temporal things You your self say p. 311. It was no properly Church-power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock Then are not Deacons that are allowed to preach and baptize c. different Officers By this time I hope you will be sensible what a Wound you have given to the Cause you take upon you to defend by this Conclusion which is my first Note upon it 2. At the first view and reading of this your second Conclusion I was willing to hope that then you would not condemn such Assemblies as Mr. B's who leave the ruling Work to you and are glad if they be permitted to preach and hear God's Word and do not separate from you but joyn with you even in Sacraments as well as other parts of God's Worship But looking farther into your Book I see my Mistake For you say pag. 98. as was cited before No Man denies that more places for Worship are desirable and would be very useful where c. But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where
Liberty of captivating their Vnderstanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free Passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by God's Blessing that universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Vnity This Citation being to long I shall add but one more out of him and that a shorter p. 209. This is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Vnity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion Last of all I close with your Rational Account p. 291. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in Justice make the necessary Conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare Men Christians ought to capacitate them for Communion with Christians Even an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the indispensible Rule of Faith and Manners Which be pleased to note is something different from your late establish'd Rule Now would you fix here that those things which declare Men Christians shall suffice to capacitate them for Communion with you how many Mens Scruples would be removed and what better way can you think of to put a stop to Separation 7. Are you Impartial in charging all Nonconformist's Meetings with Separation tho very many of them ordinarily join with the Parochial Congregations and do not deny them â—o be true Churches as the old Separatists did p. 56. It is true say you in that Opinion they differ but in Separation they agree As in your Sermon p. 33. For do they not do the very same things and in the same manner that the others do how comes it then to be Separation in some and not in others Which I answered Rector of Sutton p. 49. thus What they do is not done upon the Separatists Principles and therefore not done in the same manner Yet you neither retract that Saying of yours nor refute my Answer And have not others as much reason to object against you that when you receive the Sacrament kâ—eeling you do the same thing that the Papists and Lutherans do I do not think it manifestly appears from the Pope's manner of receiving either sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as you say p. 15. that the Papists are allowed to follow him herein How then comes that to be an Act of Worship in them when with you it is no Act of Worship but a â—eer indifferent Ceremony 8. Are you not very Partial in loading those that do not absolutely separate from you but only secundum quid as you do p. 54 55 56. Making their Practice that own you to be true Churches to be the more unjustifiable more inexcusable more unreasonable Separation Is it not a greater Schism to separate from you as no true Church than to do it only because you are faulty in imposing such Conditions as they cannot lawfully submit to Are they the greatest Separatists who hold Communion with you so far as they can I should think they are the greatest Separatists whose Separation is the most unjustifiable inexcusable and unreasonable As I had thought there was not so much reason to deny the Being of the Church of England while she retaineth the true Faith and hath the true Worship of God for substance as there may be to doubt of the lawfulness of Ceremonies and Modes of Worship invented and imposed without any clear Scripture-Warrant And suppose one dares not receive the Communion with you because he holdeth kneeling in that Act a participating with Idolaters and another is kept off because he suspects there may be some Superstition in it will you say the latter is the more unreasonable And do you not own those Lutheran Churches that have Exorcism with Baptism yet to be true Churches And if you was placed there must you therefore own and use Exorcism tho against your Judgment or be guilty of a more inexcusable unreasonable Separation from them than the Papists who deny them to be true Churches 9. Are you Impartial in allowing a different way of Worship to the Members of Forreign Churches here in England as p. 147 148. while you are against allowing the like Liberty to Natives which you deny not to Strangers Bishop Davenant Ad pacem Eccl. Adhort p. 116. Rat. 3. argues That none ought to deal more hardly with their Christian Brethren of other Churches than with their own Rom. 12. 5. Nam fraâ—â—rnitâ—s Christiana quae Intercedit inter membra Christi non variatur pro locorum aut nationum varietate You would have your own more hardly dealt with than those of forreign Churches Now what Equity is here Either you have Communion with those of Forreign Churches not withstanding their different way of Worship or you have not If you have no Communion with them then are you not Schismaticks from those Churches If you have Communion with them why may you not as lawfully have Communion with Nonconformists in their way of Worship Can you assign any just and sufficient Cause ex Natura rei why such a way of Worship should not be allowed 10. Do you deal Impartially while you complain p. 112. that no bounds are set to the Peoples Fancies of purer Administrations concerning which I am quite mistaken if I did not wish the Rector of Sutton had cautioned what he said and you on the other hand set no Bounds but by your excepting against what Mr. B. hath written of it would have People own and commit the care of their Souls to such Ministers as are in place be they never so profane insufficient or unsound Tho Mr. Cheyney Full Answer c. Introduct p. 7. grants That where God doth make a difference Men may Now God doth make a difference says he between the Ministry of the best and the worst between the Ministry of a John Baptist and a Pharisee a living Man and an Image P. 177. Say you And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches c. Where you suppose every Parochial Church in England to be a true Church and every Parochial Minister by consequence to be a true Minister unless you would argue fallaciously there Tho I had thought it possible to have found out some few at least whom you would have been ashamed to own I cannot but wonder at that you urge again and again p. 111. Were they not baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it p. 148. Our Business is with those who being baptized in this Church c. May not all those that were baptized in Presbyterian or Independent Congregations as well plead their Baptism for their continuing in that way of Worship which was in the
that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful Things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms if the Thing so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Which with more you have in that Page and the Page before it cuts off your third Particular Preface p. 75. Here now I have gained so much Ground of you Such are necessitated to withdraw from your Communion who must otherwise joyn in some unlawful or suspected Practice As Chillingworth p. 269. To do ill that you may do well is against the Will of God which to every good Man is a high Degree of Necessity And say you Rational Account p. 290. Can any one imagine it should be a Fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an Obligation to the contrary from the Principles of their common Christianity Here I assume they are bound by the Principles of common Chrisianity to keep off from Communion with you that know they should certainly sin if they held Communion with you because they should then joyn in suspected â—ractices and things which after Enquiry their Consciences tell them are unlawful Ergo you must say it cannot be a Fault in such to keep off from Communion with you Though I would grant them faulty so far as any keep off through Prejudice Error Ignorance yet so far as these are involuntary they are more excusable than to go directly cross to their own Consciences here So therefore such are necessitated to withdraw Communion from you who would certainly sin if they held Communion with you judging such Communion to be sinful 2. If you say here What is this to a positive Separation which is the present Business You shall see it is something towards it You are come a fair Step on the Way Once grant that it is lawful for Men or that Men are necessitated to deny Communion with you in unlawful or but suspected Practices which are unlawful to them and you come presently to the Point Allowing them to withdraw from yours you must allow them to joyn in some other Christian Assembly unless you would have them utterly deprived of the Worship of God and to live like Heathens As you say well Irenic p. 109. Every Christian is under an Obligation to joyn in Church society with others because it is his Duty to profess himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without Society with some Church or other So then Christians that cannot enjoy Sacraments with you must joyn with some other Society where they may enjoy them And further take notice of that remarkable Assertion in your Rational Account p. 335. and apply it here as far as there is Cause Our Assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by forcing Men N. B. if they would not damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences in approving the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together N. B. for the solemn Worship of God according to the Rule of Scripture and Practice of the Primitive Church and suspending I suppose it should have been and to suspend Communion with that Church till those Abuses and Corruptions be redressed And I observe further Ibid. p. 291. you would not have Men bound to Communion with a particular Church but in Subordination to God's Honour and the Salvation of their Souls Yea you say Men are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed as are directly repugnant to these Ends. And where Men should be forced to damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences would not this be directly repugnant And yet are not such bound to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God c. You see now how far I have brought you even on your own Grounds how you will get off I know not Then might it not have been expected that you would have been more favourable and charitable towards the Assemblies of those Ministers and Christians that are kept off from you by unlawful Terms or at least such unnecessary Terms as are to them unlawful You speak more temperately Rational Account pag. 331. Here let me use some of your own Words there which something favour those Assemblies you now engage so zealously against By their declaring the Grounds of their Separation to be such Errors and Corruptions which are crept into the Communion of your Church and imposed on them in order to it they withal declare their readiness to joyn with you again if those Errors and Corruptions be left out ☞ And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute Separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such Abuses be reformed This they 'l say is very good But now in your new Impartial Account Preface pag. 46. you speak in another Dialect Would they have had me represented that as no Sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it c. What that which is as plain a Sin as Murder pag. 209. which is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. And yet on the other hand would you have them conform to you though against their Consciences Would that be no Sin Would God be wel-pleased with such Service as was done but to please Men while their Consciences in the mean while condemned them for it Can you say bonâ Fide that it is better more pleasing to God that Men conform to your Modes and Ceremonies though they have real Doubts of Conscience that they are unlawful or better they should live without God's publick Worship and Ordinances then to joyn with such as the Non-conformists That this is as the Sin of Murder Dare you go or send to all the Dissenters in your Parish supposing you take them to belong to your Charge and give 'm it under your hand that though they are still unsatisfied after all you have said and written though they believe they should offend God if they joyned with you upon such Terms yet I say durst you give it under your hand that they would do better to joyn in your way of Worship than in that of the Non-conformists though they have no more doubt of joyning with the latter than you had heretofore If you are clear in the Point have you done this Or why do you neglect your Duty towards them Why do you not endeavour to bring them in
put into the other Scale against Episâ—pacy and Ceremonies If the Law had said it shall be the loss of a Man's living to practise or preach for Episcopacy Common-Prayer-Book or Ceremonies these things even in their own Opinions would have been light as Vanity p. 193. Yet for what you say Preface p. 89. I am to suppose he was under a mistake For we must not think as you tell us there that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause or that you will give up the Cause of the Church so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it Now suppose ye were all outed of your Livings because ye could not or would not declare your Assent and Consent to the utter abolishing of such things I beseeâ—h you tell us sincerely what you would do in such a Case and would have others of your Brethren to do Do you judg it the Duty of Pastors to go on in passing a just Censure though against the Will of the Magistrate as I urged you with it Rector of Sutton p. 76. and yet would you wholly lay aside the Office of the Ministry and preach the Gospel no more rather than câ—oss his Will Would ye think your selves no more concerned to endeavour to keep up the Exercise of true Religion as you might when it was against the Will of the Magistrate If only such as the Non-conformists were in place you would be forced to confess that The true Religion was yet maintained and preached in publick Assemblies as pag. 136. And that there was an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between you and them and therefore according to your arguing pag. 132. you could not exercise though more privately when turn'd out of your Livings but such Faults as Sedition or Schism c. would be found in your Meetings Make the Case of Dissenters your own suppose your selves in the like Circumstances and I doubt not you will see cause to judg more favourably of them Do but allow them to do as you would do your selves in the like Case and I hope this Dispute will soon be at an End Here I shall take off all you say to that Question I proposed Rector of Sutton p. 26. And may it not be a Question whether they can properly be said to erect New Churches or to proceed to the forming of separate Congregations who were true Ministers and had their Congregations before others came into their places If they had done nothing N. B. worthy of Ejection or Exclusion from their Ministry whether they have not still a Right to exercise their Function c. You migh have done well to have joyned my Tenth Query pag. 3. with it and to have considered both together But what say you to this Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 137. There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation How Sir Are you in good earnest Not one word but might equally have served the Papists Why certainly you wrote in haste and forgot your self or else it is your Judgment that the Popish Bishops and Priests had done nothing worthy of Ejection or Exclusion from their Offices that they had still a Right to exercise their Functions And yet you argue it Rational Account pag. 379. that they were justly deprived How can these things stand together They had done nothing worthy of Ejection and yet were justly deprived You seem to have a great Conceit of this poor Shift we had it but a Page or two before pag. 135. The Papists then had the very same Plea that these Men have now So you must say and argue thus The Ministers of Antichrist and those such as were State-Incendiaries too might justly be cast out by Law ergo so may true Ministers of Christ though peaceable and loyal I grant the Antecedent but do you prove the Consequent But what have you further to say to me For indeed what you have yet said here is worse than nothing But in what follows the Reader may think you had a good mind to pay me home For the Law signifies nothing with them in any Case where themselves are concerned If Ministers be ejected without or against Law they who come into their place are no Usurpers and if they are cast out by Law they that succeed them are Usurpers so that the Law is always the least thing in their Consideration Now I thank you for this But is there here no sharp Reflection Do you not here bewray some undecent Passion which you so condemn others for Are not these things invidiously spoken Would you not here be raking into old Sores c. contrary to what you say in your Preface p. 44 45 But did you think to pinch me here who never was in a sequestred Living nor my predecessor before me but came in upon the choice of the People none opposing You thought to give us a dry Blow here never considering that it would reach as many if not more Conformists though it could not once touch him you seem especially to direct it to 〈◊〉 thus far of Ministers exercising though silenced if silenced for no 〈◊〉 Now II. To say something on the behalf of the People that hear them 1. They are under an Obligation to worship God in Society with other Christians with respect to God's Glory and their own Edification and Salvation They are charged not to forsake the assembling of themselves together And commanded to be swift to hear 2. The way is blockt up so as many cannot come to your Assemblies unless to use your own Phrase you would have them damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences And if you judge it better for such to want the ordinary means of Salvation than to enjoy them by joyning with Non-conformists we must take you to be no more infallible herein than that Popish Council that decreed it righter to remain without visible Communion than to have it with those they call Hereticks 3. Some though they could dispense with the Liturgy and Ceremonies yet cannot satisfie themselves to take up under some Parish-Ministers who are apparently no way qualified for the work they take upon them I take the 9th Canon of the Council of Nice to be for nulling the Ordination of such as are scandalous or insufficient You are not for the People's choosing their Pastors but it is evident and undeniable that they are to refuse some Beware of false Prophets Beware of them i. e. fly from their Communion and have nothing to do with them as you say p. 215. They are to flee from Corrupt Teachers as from Wolves As the People forsook Photinus of whom Vincent Lyrinen adv haeres c. 16. p. 42. saith Nam quem antea quasi arietem Gregis sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere caeperunt which you have also
one is bound to submit to the Determination of such what ever his private Judgment be 1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God 2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency 3. And wholly as to the Form of Government This I think you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters and how material to give them Satisfaction will appear by examining the several Parts But first it is worth nothing that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Implying that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers such as are not lawful Governours of the Church Then so far you and they may be agreed that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch c. in England Men were not bound to submit to their Determination till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman p. 305. and others and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations as lawful Governours of the Church those who neverwere chosen or approved by the People is another Question But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine you tell us 1. Every one is bound to submit to their Determination As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God Here 1. You should have told us whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches or only such Ancient Churches as those of the fourth or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal and got the upper Ground In Defence of the Right of Kings p. 398. where the Cardinal arguing that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years was not to be condemned His Majesty replied In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession that in the first five hundred Years the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith nor approved by Practice VVherein to my understanding the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit for the Church in the time of the Apostles their Disciples was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge than at any time since in any succeeding Age in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant whether all or only some of them And if but some whether those that only took the Scripture as their Rule in reforming or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches together with it 2. What are those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God besides matters of meer Order and Decency and what relates to Form of Government 3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule When you grant the Church may err and general Councils may err may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word that are not sâ— left Chillingworth grants there may be just and necâ—ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cathâ—lick Church p. 298. And you say partly the same in your Rational Account pag. 331 332. Those Errors in practice in the Judgment of the Church may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word when yet others are not bound to submit to them You tell us Rational Account p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by it is most senslâ—ss pleading Prescription till you have particularly examined how far such Prescription is allowed by him So then it is not enough to say in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law and the Church hath Power to determine them But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on p. 628. It may be you will tell me that in this Case Prescription interprets Law and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side since you run your self into new Briars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the Practice here I must say by the Iudgment of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived 4. Is this a plain or rather is it not an Impossible Rule If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches as to those things We should think it well if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty but according to what you have here laid down this should not be sufficient but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law Or will you say that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches they must believe without more adoe Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours till such time as they can be satisfied that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches Will you give them time till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches 5. Is this a golden rather is it not a leaden Rule May it not be turned contrary ways Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving Were
not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches And were they for our English Ceremonies Do not the Lutheran Churches hold some things lawful and indifferent which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable As things indifferent and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches I do profess plainly says Chillingworth p. 376. that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only the Bible I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. 6. Is this Rule of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule Do you find the one agreeable to the other Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies which they yet held undetermined by God's Word Was it their Judgment that each Nation or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things Do you find this within the first five hundred years Can you gainsay those Words of yours cited Rector of Sutton p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I sâ—arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs which might be an Argument of Moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23. the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters and yet live in Peace And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters and yet communicate one with another The Primitive Christians retained câ—ntrary Observations and yet as Irenaeus said held fast the bond of Love and Vnity Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church or the best reformed Churches have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters Here comes to my Mind that which you say Vnreas of Separat p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of râ—verence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery Yet with King Iames Defence of the right of Kings p. 47c the Christian Religion reformed is as to say purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs And p. 17. Altho they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors c. Agreeable to Chillingworth p. 287. â— 82. But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it from Arch-Bishop Whitgift I cannot tell However T. C. latter part of his second Reply p. 172. could not discern it to have any Solidity but called it a single solid Argument seeing Transforming may be in part as well as Reforming And you have not improved it at all But what a strange Assertion is that of yours p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church but the same wich our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days And will you stand to this that they died Mâ—rtyrs for Ceremonies and for such Impositions as have thrust out so many Ministers that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth for which indeed they laid down their Lives I had thought that I. Rogers the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution had been a Non-conformist As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered And can you make the World believe that they suffered for Conformity And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause whether Conformists or Non-conformists Indeed they agreed well in Red in Blood and Flames who before had differed in Black and White But as you will have it p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds c. And p. 4. I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us c. I say you would persuade us that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers who were for Reforming according to the Scripture rejecting all things repugnant thereto only they would have the Church reduced as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors p. 17. Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function and other Church-Members into Communion observed in those Antient Churches or one as near as could be to it and further to make it good that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule Or if you cannot do this you must then grant that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers that is the Scripture and those Primitive Churches and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire neque Domini est voluntas neque purioris Ecclesiae mâ—s 7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule If never so many Councils if all the Churches upon Earth determined that they had such Power that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law we could not submit to such Determination while we believe the Scripture which tells us so plainly that they have no Power for Destruction but for Edification I subscribe to that of Panormitan Magis Laico esse credendum si ex scripturis loquatur quam Papae si absque verbo Dei agat Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over Godâ—s Heritage And tho the Laity or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there yet no doubt by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome he gives this for one good Reason Because they usurp more Power than the Apâ—stle Paul accounted belonging to him 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith Quibus verbis testatur fidem nâ—mini subjectam
be scrupled Noted Rector of Sutton pag. 16. And thus far if you please you and I are agreed That Rules of Order not contrary to the end of Order should be submitted unto and that not only for the Churches Peace but also in Obedience to God's Command Let all things be done decently and in order And to such orderly Determinations what Camero says pag. 314. col 1. may in some sort be applied Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae at Leges respectu Dei nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia Deus impâ—ravit 2. But I observe that in other Writings since your mind is changed and you have learned now to confound what before you would have distinguished that is your Rites and Ceremonies and Matters of Order and Decency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. So you say in your New Account or Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 393. We declare that they are appointed only for Order and Decency And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you Of which there hath been and is so great dispute Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them upon such Determination I intend not to say much upon these Questions supposing they may fall in others Way And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion so much hath been written upon these Points that might excuse us from saying more till what hath been published be fairly answered Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 1. You say and declare they are appointed only for Order and Decency But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. whereupon it follows that you must hold them vainly appointed or that the contrary might as well have been appointed and so teach or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies whereby many are deprived of their Ministers and of some of God's Ordinances which may seem very harsh if they are only for Order and Decency and that in so low a Degree that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed without them Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause than their meer Wills 2. Do you well accord here with Mr. R. Hooker who says Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit we that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual You seemed Answer to several Treatises p. 268. unwilling that any should urge you with that Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship was not not in it self altogether so decent and fitâ— But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature that the contrary implieth no Indecency then you cannot say that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them Wherein you and Mr. Hooker appear to be of different Minds And kneeling at Communions with him l. 5. § 68. p. 366. is a Gesture of Piety which is something more than meer Decency 3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church You declare our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God by some notable and special Signification whereby he might be edified Will you say such things are only for Order and Decency which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God and for his Edification One would think that such things should be good in themselves and not as you say of an indifferent Nature in themselves Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency whose contrary are as decent to be the same or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty whereby he may be edified then is it not made medium excitans which you say Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 354. our Church utterly denies Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies which you can by no means allow pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation to say they are only Matters of Order and Decency and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept Let all things be done decently and in Order tho they are things of a quite different Nature Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere but it would be no Transgression of that Command though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed or used in the Worship of God nor any others like them Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies Here 1. You say pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual Effects it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship And then the Question is whether these are no spiritual Effects if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for Men ' s Edification And as Dr. Field says they are adhibited to exercise great Fervour and Devotion And Hooker Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence Devotion and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite If you makâ— them unprofitable idle Indifferents are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment and if others make them profitable edifying Ceremonies have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such 2. If Church-Governours have Power that is lawful Power or Authority from Christ to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission or prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say Rational Account p. 103. Is it in that Place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded And a little before it what hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Surely you cannot think the Church hath any such Power In all kind of
made parts of Divine Worship you will excuse those that cannot submit to them unlâ—ss they could be proved of Divine Institution If they are things not 〈◊〉 by the Word according to what you have p. 116. they should not be 〈◊〉 they are not bound to use them No Church-Governours upon Faith havâ— suâ—h a Power to bind men to things not 〈◊〉 by the Word If their 〈◊〉 enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid as the making of any nâ—w part of Worship they are ipso facto null and void King Iamâ—s 〈…〉 Right of Kings p. 428. It is moreover granted If a King sâ—all command any thing dirâ—ctly contrary to God's Word and tending to the 〈◊〉 of the Church that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for thâ—ir Obedience but also expresly to forbid their Obedience For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King 's here and abâ—ve Christâ—â— And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col 2. may be appliâ—d hâ—re to Non-submission in such case as is spoken of to the Determination of Church-Governous Deirectatio autem illa Obedienâ—iae 〈◊〉 est in Obedientia nedum resiâ—tentia sed tantum Supremi Iuris 〈◊〉 quâ—d Magistratus sibi 〈◊〉 adrogat out userpat debita Recognitio It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours but rather a due Recogniâ—â—â—on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord. For haste I have here thrown things on heaps A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion 3. You say Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination Here I offer to your Consideration what follows 1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice that is live peaceably under it and obey Governours in Licitis Honestis so far as God's Law allows should be urged further to submit their Iudgment to the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy when determined by Governours whatever their private Iudgment may be Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination whose Judgment was That the Bishops and Priests were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as you cite his MS. Irenic p. 392. could such a Man as Dr. Holland and I need not tell you what he was who called Dr Laud a Schismatick for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy saying It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture c. who in effect says the contrary Thes. Salmur p. 8. § 33. Neque verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus c. And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops as of Bishops I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account whether you could submit to such Determination For there pag. 298. You speak of it as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts without any such Subordination or Dependance Here I would be satisfied how you would expound Homogeneal Parts and so you seem to expound them p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian Episcopatus unus appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church But then should not all that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them be supposed to be Bishops and no one Bishop above another otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them how is there Episcopatus unus And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts And thus will it not follow that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them which you here suppose to be with a Parity should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Manâ—or or Lordship in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake if not Diocesan Churches too 2. Whether you could submit and declare your Assent if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution and should require your Assent Would you then disown and discard such whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours For what you say Vnreasonableness of Separation Preface p. 89. we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them For there you tell us The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause They must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it that is for Union or the Churches Peace so as to condemn its Constitution c. Then you cannot say that wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of Governours whatever his private Judgment be Here I have put a Case wherein you could not submit 3. What if the whole Work of Government belonging to the Pastor's Office was quite taken out of their hand that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop and such Copy-holders as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision without doing any thing towards a Reformation Should they betrary the Churches Interest for the Churches Peace May they not endeavour any Alteration not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power and by humble Petition for Redress 4. Is every one bound to submit wholly as to the Form of Government to Governours Determination Then what if our Civil Governours and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments and Determinations I make no question but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren lately to be by God's
Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supream Government If this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury do recant and retract his Saying in his Book of the great Volumn against Cartwright where he saith in plain Words by the Name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is of God's own Institution which Saying doth impugn her Majesties Supream Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly And I find something like this in that small Tract called English Puritanism c. 6. § 6. They â—old that all Arch-Bishops Bishâ—ps Deans Officials c. have their Offices and Functions only by Will and Pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm and they hold that whosoever holdeth that the King may not without Sin remove these Offices out of the Church or 〈◊〉 these Offices are Jure divino and not only or meerly Jure humano That all such deny a principal Part of the King's Supremacy which indeed you must hold as to Bishops if you can prove them an Apostolical Institution Though I know the time when you was of another mind Rector of Sutton p. 41. Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical Institution And pag. 40. you believed that upon the strictest Enquiry it would be â—ound true that Ierome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Theodoret Theophylact were all for the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and â—reâ—byters in the Primitive Church Now suppose the Civil Governours should determine the Government by Bishops as superiour to the rest of the Clergy to be only jure humano that they had Power to alter if they pleased and should require Assent to this their Determination and the Ecclesiasticks on the other hand should be of your mind resolving not to give up the Cause of the Church or disown its Constitution and should determine it to be Iure Divino vel Apostolico and to be owned of Men as such In such a Case whether must the former for the Churches Peace think themselves bound to submit to the Determinations of the latter Or to which of their Determinations must others submit For none but such as the Vicar of Bray could submit to both Thus I have gone over your three Conclusions which you seem to make great account of What great Service they are like to do you let the Impartial Reader judg Instead of my third Conclusion I would offer to Consideration Chap. 26 of Corbet's Kingdom of God among Men. of Submission to Things imposed by lawful Authority p. 171 c. Particularly pag. 173. Though the Ruler be Iudg of what Rules he is to prescribe yet the Conscience of every Subject is to judg with a Iudgment of Discretion whether those Rules be agreeable to the Word of God or not and so whether his Conformity thereto be lawful or unlawful Otherwise he must act upon blind Obedience c. with what follows in that Page And pag. 174. It is much easier for Rulers to relax the strictness of many Injunctions about matters of supposed Convenience than for Subjects to be inlarged from the strictness of their Iudgment And blessed are they that consider Conscience and load it not with needless Burdens but seek to relieve it in its Distresses You go on with me Preface p. 74 But he urges another Passage in the same Place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But will not this equally hold against our Church if it excommunicates those who cannot conform Now may not it be said here as Rational Account p. 336. beginning They did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of your Church and therefore are no Schismaticks but your Carriage and Practices were 〈…〉 them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And may not your own Words ibid. p. 356 be returned Scil. That by your own Confession the present Division and Separation lies at your door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient Reasons for your casting them out of your Communion And supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that Division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those Conditions c. Here it is to be noted that your own Words Irenic p. 123 124. objected against you Rector of Sutton pag. 30. are as follow This Scil. entring into a distinct Society for Worship I do not assert to be therefore lawful because some things are required which Men's Consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of Communion on that account in which Case their Separation is necessary Whence I inferred that if Ministers be wrongfully ejected and wholly cast out of their publick Ministry for such things as their Consciences are not satisfied in for not conforming in unlawful or suspected Practices it becomes necessary for them to have distinct Assemblies in this case at least if there be need of their Ministry Yet I cannot find that you have one word in Answer to this That one would think either you knew not well what to say to the Case of the ejected Non-conformists or that they were so very despicable in your Eye you thought them not worth taking notice of at all Now to your Answers 1. Our church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites Yet whatever you say here I doubt a Man though he hath his Child lawfully baptized is not secured from the Sentence of Excommunication if he bring it not to the Church to be crossed And though a Man would joyn in the Communion yet if he be not satisfied to receive the Sacrament kneeling by the Rules of the Church he is to be debarred from the Sacrament and then liable to Excommunication for not receiving And being once excommunicated I would know what parts of publick Worship the Church allows him to communicate in Thus there seems to be little more than a Colour and Pretence in this first Answer if the Rules of the Church be followed But you further say Preface p. 74 75. 2. The Case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of the Church In the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema Now 1. If there be a necessity of our Separation
from the Church of Rome upon account of that highest Censure of Excommunication with an Anathema and her pronouncing us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to her Communion as you here suppose why then do you allow a Protestant to joyn in some parts of Worship in the Roman Church as in hearing Sermons c. as is plain you do pag. 108. 2. I shall not oppose you in this that the general Excommunication ipso facto in the Canons lays no Obligation till it be duly executed As you say pag. 368 369. General Excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular Persons until the Evidence be notorious c. And the Question is whether any Person knowing himself to be under such Qualifications which incur a Sentence of Excommunication be bound to execute this Sentence upon himself Yet another Question may come in here viz. supposing such a Sentence unjust though that alone would not justify Separation whether yet it may not something extenuate it You are not for extenuating at all I can bear you witness 3. And may I not say that this is answering but by Halves It never reacheth the Case of so many Ministers who have been wholly cast out of their publick Ministry It reacheth not the Case of many private Christians who have been formally and actually excommunicated for such Causes as can never be proved by Scripture to deserve such a Censure and Sentence You know that Canon of the Council held at Agatha Can. 2. Carranza fol. 159. that if Bishops excommunicated any unjustly they were to be admonished by other neighbouring Bishops And might not the Admonishers have received such into their Communion whom the other had unjustly cast out As the Council at Wormes Carrenza fol. 388. Can. 2. cut short there as I suppose Can. 14th is cited in Mr. B's Church History p. 275. § 56. saying That if Bishops shall excommunicate any wrongfully or for light Cause and not restore them the Neighbour-Bishops shall take such to their Communion till the next Synod And to my weak understanding you say nothing here to what you have Iren. p. 119 120. where you fairly clear Non-conformists but lay the Imputation of Schism upon those who require such Conditions of Communion as they cannot conform unto for Conscience-sake The very requiring of such Conditions you would have there to be no less than an ejecting Men out of Communion And therefore I should wonder if by being wholly cast out of Communion you then meant only being excommunicated with an Anathema As I doubt not but Separation is as necessary where one cannot have Communion with-out joyning in unlawful or suspected Practices as where one is formally excommunicated yea and if an Anathema were annext to the Sentence too You add 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal Reason in these Cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about Matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Here 1. Be pleased to note that as much as you seem taken with and hug this Conceit of yours as you have it once and again here and likewise in your Conferences p. 171. as if you thought it would do you Knights Service yet it remains wholly unproved that the things imposed are only Matters of Decency and Order Still I conceive that if Man only had apâ—ointed such a use of Bread and Wine to signify and put us in remembrance of Christ's Body broken and his Blood shed for us it had been something more than a meer matter of Decency and Order or something worse And whether the same may not be said of the Sign of the Cross I am in doubt for they seem to be parallel And so it neither is nor ever can be proved that such Imposition of such things in the Iudgment both of the Primitive and of all Reformed Churches is allowable by God's Law and that Men are bound to submit to them whether they are satisfied about them or not 2. When you say The Author of Irenicum could not possibly mean that there was an equal Reason in these Cases I would fain know what those Words mean Irenic p. 119. cited Rector of Sutton p. 21. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms if the things so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Did you not here suppose some Equality in these Cases And which way did you wind and turn your self to get off from those Arguments 3. And let me say this further How could you then possibly mean that Men should be bound in Conscience to submit to significant Ceremonies as meer Matters of Order and Decency when you so plainly distinguished them Iren. pag. 67. And say of such Ceremonies that their Lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled p. 68. cited Rect. of Sutton p. 16. Could you then possibly mean that such Ceremonies and Matter of Order and Decency were all one certainly you could not any further than you might possibly contradict your self Preface p. 76. And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Paul's But if this be all you have to say they are not yet well agreed And whether there be not the like Disagreement betwixt your Rational Account and this your Impartial Account where I have compared them let the Indifferent and Impartial Reader judg Thus I have gone thorow so much of your Preface as I am concerned in As you take little notice of me in your Book I have little more to say I would not take others Work out of their hands who are by so great odds fitter for it The first place where I find Rector of Sutton cited is p. 95. There you take notice how far I say we agree with you but you over-look what follows upon it that it seems very hard that notwithstanding you break with us for things you count but Trifles yet would be Sins to us Will you grant that such as agree with you in all things necessary may not should not be debarred Communion by imposing things unnecessary Or will you assert the contrary and prove it Again pag. 98. You cite Rector of Sutton p. 35. All the Parish-Ministers aâ—e not near sufficient for so populous a City And can you say they are sufficient Is there no need of more Why then do you say This is but a Colour and Pretence The case
is plain that there is real need of more Ministers than are in place And I desired to know whether it was better that Men shoulâ— be untaught and so pâ—rish for lack of Knowledgâ— than taught by such as the Non-conformists Whether the Souls of Men are of no more value than our Ceremonies But as yet I have no Answer from you that may satisfy What you further say to me p. 137. I have fully answered before Again pag. 144. You cite a few Words of mine wich I know to be true of some and pitty them And though it is said we would certainly give but bad Quarter to others yet I hope if I had been all this time in placâ— for me they should have had their Liberty to hear those they were 〈◊〉 â—â—tisfied with and could profit more by Pag. 168 169. You contradict not what I said Rector of Sutton p. 15 16. Onl◠〈…〉 little use of it as seem'd to serve your purpose there while yet 〈◊〉 â—â—ands good against you Pag. 196. You do not fully set down my meaning though it was plain enough Rector of Sâ—tton p. 42. Neither do you take any notice of what you had said your self Irenic p. 65. though you there meet with it again Wherefore I wonder how you could overlook it If that Council at Gangrae had enjoyned the religious use of a peculiar habit appropriate to the Service of God and others had refused to submit to it I question then whether the Council would not have been the Schismaticks As whether any without being guilty of making a Schism can exclude and silence Ministers for wearing Beards or for not obeying such a trifling command as that was Mr. B Church-History p. 360 361. § 55. But upon that matter of the Council's condemning the followers of Eust. Sebastenus I still query whether you ought not to make a difference betwixt such as separated meerly upon pretence of Purity while they were indeed defiled with gross Errors both in Opinion and Practice as I there shewed and such as are necessitated to withdraw and cannot otherwise keep their Consciences pure This you should consider As Chillingworth says p. 282. § 71. A Murderer can cry Not Guilty as well as an innocent Person but not so truly nor so justly And P. Martyr Loc. Com. cl 4. l. 6. p. 894. Si quaedam partes ab eo toto se dividant quod â—itiari infici nolint discessio erit laudabilis The seventh and last place where you take notice of me is p. 307. And there I am brought in as concluding with and for you about your National Church But if we are agreed herein why then do you call that which I say of it Rector of Sutton p. 20 21. A weak Assault as you do implicitly p. 303. § 23. Assaulting tho never so weakly is not agreeing but quite different or rather contrary But there I say 1. That we will thank you if you can prove the National Church of England as it is now established to subsist by a Divine Law and positive Institution of Christ. 2. I put it to the question whether it be not Schismatical for any National Church to make such Terms of Agreement and Communoon as are â—ot agreeable to that same Rule by which all Christians ought to walk And that your Terms are such is easy to prove from your own Words there recited And whether they that so far separate from such a dividing National Church tho they comply not with its established Rule may not yet be found walking by the same Rule in the true sence of your Text Yet these things you thought fit to pass by and would notwithstanding persuade your Readers that had rather take your Word than be at any pains to compare things together that we are agreed and this point is thought fit to be given up And yet I do not deny but Christians of whatsoever Society whether a less or greater should be for uniting so far as they can to preserve and strengthen the Society and to promote true Religion and Christianity So I agree with you in what you say p. 292. The best way of the Churches Preservation is by an Union of the Members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it And doubtless this is a good and necessary Proviso for that which overthrows the ends of Vnion is a wicked Conspiracy against Christ and his Church rather than true Christian Vnity or Concord But then it should be considered if a National Church sets down such Terms of Union as have no tendency to promote the common cause of Religion and true Interest of Christianity such terms as are sure to cause Dissention as evidently tend to divide break and shatter the Society whether the Churches Preservation be therein truly consulted or any way likely to be thereby secured And whether as Mr. Corbet says Kingdom of God c. p. 155. The Constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompâ—ssing of all true Christians which indeed makes for its most fixed and ample state And whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental Error in its Policy and will not always hinder its stability and increase Thus I think I have spoken to all the Passages in your Book wherein I am properly concerned Yet am I not at an end of my Task In your Preface you direct me to three Letters you have subjoined to your Treatise Preface p. 76. You say There is one thing more which this Author takes notice of Rector of Sutton p. 6. If we are condemned by oothers abroad we may thank our Friends at home who have misrepresented us to the World while we have not been allowed to plead for our selves Therefore to give satisfaction as to the Judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living I have subjoyned to the following Treatise some late Letters of theirs c. Now whether you have put these Letters in print with the consent of those that wrote them or by some Law or Priviledg peculiar to your self I know not nor shall I trouble my self to enquire And whether they were procured on purpose to grace and set off this Book of yours as by their Date they appear to have come lately as you say the first written in September 80. The second in October The third in November this however is not very material But it is likely some may think your Five Answerers confronted and confounded with the Authority of these three Letters of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living Yet to tell you my Thoughts I could not but think thus with my self That if we had no more cause to fear a French-Army confuting us by Club-Law than that any eminent French Protestant Divines would condemn us if they thorowly examined and knew our Cause we were so far safe enough Now as to these Letters
Saviour of the Church that came to take off heavy Burthens and intolerable Yokes will take it well to have Men come after him and as by his Authority to make his easy Yoke more strait and his light Burthen heavy and to cast or keep out thâ—se that he hath redeemed and doth receive and to deal cruelly with those that he hath so dearly bought and so tenderly loveth ibid. p. 120. § 6. When Christ says Mat. 18. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck c. Whether Bishops may curse such from Christ and excommunicate them and whether it be safe for them to do so ibid. p. 144. And seeing that spiritual Priviledges excell temporal whether it be not an aggravated Tyranny to deprive Christ's Servants of Benefits so precious and so dearly bought ibid. p. 120. § 9. Q. 40. Whether Christ be not the Institutor of the Church and hath not himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the Bond of their Unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath not he given Laws to regulate all Men's Laws that determine of needful undetermined Accidents And whether any Man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-Unity and Communion And whether the grand Schismaticks of the World are not the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing Terms and Conditions of Unity and Communion Answ. to Dr. Sill. Serm. p. 88 or 82. Q. 41. Whether it be not enough that we are united and agreed with those that differ from us in more than Circumstances and that we will hold Concord with all in Faith Love and Communion if they will admit us without our sinning upon the Terms set down by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles Acts 15. 28 And if no Men must be of the same Church or Kingdom that have any difference yea as great as can reasonably be supposed in the meer Non-conformists whether any two Men can be of the same Church or Kingdom except you will compose it of such as hold nothing unlawful and consequently nothing morally good which is no Church Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea for Peace p. 85 86. Q. 42. Whether the long and sad Experience of all the Christian Churches which have been divided by unnecessary human Impositions and the Voice of all wise Peace-makers in all times who have still called for Vnity in things necessary Liberty in things unnecessary and Charity in both do not leave those that yet will not be perswaded to these Terms as inexcusable Persons as almost any in the World worse than those Physicians that would use all those things as the only Remedies which have killed all that ever took them Second Plea for Peace p. 155. § 34. Q. 43. Whether they that confess that for the Communion of all the Churches there are no Terms like these now mentioned should be more cruel to their own at home turning them out of their Father's House for every Ceremonial Difference Whether a Pastor should not love his own Flock as well as the People of a Forreign Land Ib. p. 155 156. § 35. And whether it be not a Schismatical Opinion that tho Churches of many Kingdoms may charitably differ in Ceremonies and indifferent things yet none in the same Kingdom should be suffered so to differ Whether the Apostle Paul gave not the Pastors and People of the same Church of Rome those Precepts of forbearing and receiving Dissenters in things indifferent Way of Concord third Part p. 106. Q. 44. Whether Uniformity in Circumstantials and in External Polity be any more than a Carkass or Image of Unity without uniting Love which is its Soul Whether all Union in Evil or in unnecessary Circumstantials which is managed to the diminution of Christian Love are any more to the Church than as the Glory of adorned Cloathing or Monuments or Pictures to a Carkass Ib. p. 66. Q. 45. Whether Love and Unity which the most zealous for human Impositions cannot but commend would teach Men to tyrannize over Inferiors to contrive the treading down of others that they may rise and to keep them down to secure their own Domination to oppress the Poor Weak or Innocent to make Sâ—ares for other Mens Consciences or to lay Stumbling-blocks before them to occasion them to Sin or to drive them on to sin against Conscience and so to Hell to shew Mens Authority about things they call indifferent or in a thing of nought Way of Concord p. 36. Would not true â—ove end our greatest Differences if Men loved theâ— Neighbours without dissembling as themselves and did but as they would be done by Sâ—cond Plea for Peâ—â— p. 156. § 37. Yea if many of the Children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of Sin and Hell was the Cause whether a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case when his abating it hath no such danger lb. § â—6 Q. 46. Whether Unmerciful Pastors do not tempt the People to question whether they be sent of God Whether the People will not judg of Pastors as Solâ—mon of the true Mother of the Child that the Merciful and Loving is the true Pastor and the Hartful is the Usurper lb. p. 156 157. § 39. Q. 47. Whether they that can bear with such as understand not the Essentials of Christianity and with Drunkards Swearers Fornicators c. in their constant Congregations and Communion and yet will not bear with an honest godly Christian that differeth from their way of Worship in no greater matter than a Ceremony have not something more amiss within than a Ceremony Ib. p. 162. § 48. And whether the Souls of such as some call humorous peevish or wilful be not worth more than some of that they call their Liberty worth more than a needless Ceremony Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea p. 66. q. 5. Q. 48. Whether as every Hypocrite would be very Religious so far as he can subject the true common Religion to his own Interest and Lusts so every Enemy of Peace will not seem zealous for Peace so that his own Peace be made the Rule of the common Peace that all Men be brought to center in his Interests and take their Peace on his Terms from him Second Plea c. p. 149. Q. 49. Whether all the Arguments for Unity and Peace which are made use of against Toleration by Prelatists and all the mischiefs of division which they aggravate do not principally fall on themselves if it proves that they are the greatest causes of Division and hinderers of Church-Concord Ib. p. 180. § 88. Whether they do not condemn themselves who cry down Schism while they unavoidably cause it And whether overdoing Terms of Church-Union and Concord be not the certainest Engines of Schism Way of Concord p. 121. § 11.
Judgment and the Untruth of what they have believed of us ibid. p. 85. And whether we may not suppose that Satan is afraid of their Ministry who hath stirred up so much Opposition against it Sacril Desert p. 84. Q. 64. Whether Popery will come in ever the more for Non-conformist's Preaching Whether such will preach for or against it Or ever the â—ss if they renounce their Ministry ibid. p. 82. Whether they that cry out of the danger of Popery Infidelity Prophaness and Heresies and yet had rather let them all in then give us leave to exercise that Ministry to which we were consecrated in Poverty and Subjection and while they cry out of Divisions will not lay by the dividing Engines should rather accuse us or themselves if the Evils overwhelm us which they seem to fear ibid. p. 137 138. Q. 65. When any are unjustly cast out of their Parish-Churches whether all Ministers are thereupon obliged or allowed to desert or neglect them ib. p. 21. Q. 66. If a Patient would not take a Medicine from one Mans hand whether would not the Physician consent that another should give it him Whether would the Father let the Infant famish if it would take Food from none but its Mother And whether would there be need of the best Conformists as Ministers if the People had no Faults or Weaknesses ibid. p. 125 126. What if they culpably would hear no other Is it better to let them hear none at all than that we preach to them Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 59. or 61. Q. 67. Whether it be not one thing to deny total Communion with a Church and another to separate but secundum quid for some Act or Part Whether it be not one thing to separate locally by bodily Absence and another mentally by Schismatical Principles Whether it be not one thing to depart wilfully and another to be unwillingly cast out Whether it be not one thing to depart rashly and in hast and another to depart after due Patience when Reformation appears hopeless First Plea c. p. 38 39. Q. 68. When the publick Good requires Non-conformists to hold distinct Assemblies for Assistance in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as near as they can according to the Will of God to further not to disgrace or hinder the honest Parish-ministers whether are these separate Churches any more than Chappels be Or distinct Churches more than secundum quid holding personal Communion in a godly Conversation with the rest of the Christians in the Parish and also sometimes assembling with them Sacril Desert p. 22 23. Or whether those that do their best to keep up the Reputation of the publick conformable Ministry to further Love and Concord and the success of their Labours with the People and profess to take their own Assemblies but as Chappels and not as distinct much less as separated Churches yea and those who do administer Sacraments and do that which is like the Separatist's Way yet do it not on their Principles but pro tempore till God shall give them Opportunity to serve him in the established Way it being reformed or well-ordered Parish-Churches under the Government and Countenance of the Christian Magistrates which are most agreeable to their Desires whether such I say are justly accounted Separatists First Plea c. p. 246. Q. 69. Whether we may not set up other Churches when we are necessarily kept from those established by publick Power Ib. p. 77. Q. 70. Whether it be Schism to preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and Will of Heathen Mahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it as the Christians did for 300 Years And if there be the same Cause and Need whether it be any more Schism to do it against the Laws and Will of a Christian Prince For 1. Are not Christ's Laws equally obligatory 2. Are not Souls equally precious 3. Is not the Gospel and God's Worship equally necessary 4. And doth his Christianity enable him to do more Hurt than a Pagan may do or more Good Ibid. p. 51 52. Q. 71. If Competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom and the other half hath incompetent Men or if nine Parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied and but the tenth Part had not such set over them to whom the People may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their Souls whether is it Schism or whether is it not a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best Supply they can And whether is it Schism or whether is it not a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiours to perform their Office to such People that desire it Ibid. p. 83. If the Magistrate appoint 20000 or 10000 or one half of a Parish to be excluded for want of Room and Teachers is it not ill supposed that the Gospel is truly and sufficiently preached to them to whom it is not preached at all Or doth it prove it not necessary to them that it is preached to others Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 22. And whether is not the general Ordination of Ministers with the Peoples Necessity and Consent added to God's general Commands to all his Ministers to be faithful and diligent a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration without the Will of prohibiting Superiours yea against it And otherwise doth it not follow that it is at the Will of a Man whether Souls shall be saved or damned for how shall they believe unless they hear And how shall they hear without a Preacher and at the Will of Man whether Christ shall have a Church and God be publickly worshipped or not First Plea c. p. 48. And whether doth not the indispensible Law of Nature oblige every Man according to his Place and Calling his Ability and Opportunities to do his best to propagate Christ's Gospel and to save Mens Souls as much and more than to feed Mens Bodies and save their Lives And whether are not Ministers specially obliged to do it by their Calling as Ministers of Christ thereto devoted Ibid. Q. 72. There being so many sorts of Churches in the World as Universal National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Diocesan Classical Parochial Congregational whether must it not be hard to give a just Decision of the Question From which of these and when it is a Sin to separate till it be first known which of those is of Divine and which of Humane Institution and which Humane Churches are necessary which Lawful and which Sinful ibid. p. 7. How is it proved and how cometh it to be any great matter to separate from a Church-â—orm which God never made Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 33. Q. 73. Whether they that say those Species National Patriarchal Provincial Diocesan are of God must not prove that God instituted them in Scripture or else that he gave some Men power to institute them since Scripture-times And till the same be proved
teach not Heresy nor preach down Holiness c. and deny us not their Communion unless we will sin or a Conformists that will hold Communion with none but his own Party but separates from all other Churches in the Land Ib. p. 41. Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church and their Communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies as unlawful to be communicated with when it is not so If the former then will it not follow that condemning them as no Church is a Diminution or no Aggravation of Separation and the local presence of an Infidel or Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of their Friends If the latter which is certain then will it not follow that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn they are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them declaring it unlawful Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47 or 49. Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church when it is upon unwarrantable Cause or Reasons Ib. p. 31. Now how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them while they generally refuse shun and condemn our Assemblies Are there no true Churches to be found in the World that have no Bishops of a superior order over Pastors And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism and Separation from those true Churches which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers and Invaders of other Mens Rights Vid. Sacril Desert p. 60. Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species whether have any Authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts change Christ's Laws or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches Way of Concord p. 111. § 14. Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons which causlessly silence Ministers scatter Flocks and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful or unnecessary ill-made Terms of Communion ibid. third Part p. 13. § 43. And if any proud passionate or erroneous Person do as Diothrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications whether this be not tyrannical Schism First Plea c p. 41. And as we say of the Papists that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication may we not say so of any others especially if either for that which is a Duty or for some small mistake which is not in the Persons power to rectify no greater than most good Christians are guilty of their Church-Law says he shall be excommunicate ipso facto ibid. p. 104. See also Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47. or 49. § 8. Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin whether this be not heinous Schism First Plea c. p. 41 42. Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justify and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Ib. Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible or shall make Churches so great or Pastors so few as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight Teaching and publick Worship and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other that would be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances true Church-Communion and Pastoral Help whether this would not be Schismatical and much worse Ib. p. 44. Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully sâ—t over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causlessly and without Right silence them and command the People to desert them and to take to others for their Pastors in their stead oâ— whom they have no such knowledg as may encourage them to such a change Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no Bishop because another was rightful Bishop before â— Ib. p. 49 50. Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not 1. To approve the best 2. To tolerate the tolerable 3. To have Sacraments free and not forced 4. To restrain the Intolerable 5. This to be the Test of Toleration Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt in true impartial Judgment 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace Way of Concord third Part p. 144. Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest to divide his Subjects and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them and to keep them in such Divisions seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love and willing Obedience and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused Party which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest who are as wise and just and loyal as they Second Plea c. p. 76. § 24. Si in necessariis sit Vnitas In Non-necessariis Libertas In uâ—risque Charitas Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae To make a rounder number I may add from Mr. M. Godwyn his Negro's and Indians Advocate pleading for the Instructing of them and so admitting them into the Church a Book lately Printed and Dedicated to the Arch Bishoâ— of Canterbury Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it as he says in the Title-Page no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion as he says p. 91. Are all professed Christians absolutely bounâ— in their Places to endeavour the same by their Vow in Baptism and their very Profession Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion as well at home as abroad And do they not owe as much Service herein for Christ's sake towards their own Country-men as towards Strangers Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men as for Indians And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England Atheism Ignorance Error Profaneness Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us is he for any great Advancement of Religion that would send away all Non-conformists if there be thousands of them to his Negro's and Indians for this wise Reason that There is no want of their Labours at home FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London by the Author on the latter end of February or beginning of March last but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets they could not get through the Press sooner The Ingenuous Reader is â—â—so desired to pass by the Errata the Author being remote from the Press these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen viz. ERRATA PAge 5. l. 6 r. above P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele down P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater P. 63. l. 24. r. Church P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia P. 72. l. 19 20. r. betray P. 81. l. 35. r. for P. 83. l. 36 r. did he at all
hearing of Sermons c and that frequently too to be lawful Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters pag. 98. No Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in Affront to them and the Laws Here you say in Effect that let Parishes be never so large and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable nor to be encouraged because not under you establish'd Rule But either you must grant it may be lawful to joyn occasionally and that frequently too with the Non-conformists or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers and say that it was better for Men to hear these than such as Mr. B. c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists lest any should thence argue from your own Words that constant Communion with them is a Duty I am thinking however that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship And let them alone to make their best of what you say you are sure will follow p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what Denomination soever the Persons pass Because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily though but in some parts of their Worship at first its possible they would gain far more Proselites by it than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo p. 156. A Man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church Yet you will look upon your self not only as a Member of the Church of England but as a Member of the Catholick Church And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church it may possibly sometimes fall out that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church or a French Church And if Non-conformists with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick as others you can freely have Communion with and while they differ from you in nothing but if the same was removed your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them and then for ought I know you may be obliged thereunto it may be a Duty Because you wholly overlook this I thought fit to take notice of it And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments pag. 157. viz. 1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church And here I ask If there be not as great an Obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace or promote it with all Christians as with all Men And they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donatiâ—â— which you cannot in reason suppose yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says Miscel. of Schism p. 208. Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists if occasion so require And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break why may not I be present in them and use Communication with them 2 The particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. And one would think such as have attained so much Knowledg as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of Wâ—â—ship might know it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformiâ—ts 5. Are you not partial when you lay this down p. 157. As one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience when they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority c. yet you tell us not what things those are neither the time when they were pressed thereunto and refused the same And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace that were reasonable made to them which they refused But you never take notice of it as any provoking Sin in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many And might not so much have been expected from them as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace May I not here return your own Words pag. 159. Was ever Schisâ—â— made so light a matter of and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate that for the Prevention of the one and the Preserevation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done Or as I would say that the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own Judgment but things doubtful or unlawful in the Judgment of others might not be forborn Now Sir are you for palliating so great Sin as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church when you know The Obligation which lieth upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church which you give us again p. 209. And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account p 324 Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent Dissenting Protestants say we The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and redress of Abuses And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship That the Church of England is not such a Shreâ— to hâ—r Children as to deny her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation c. Where I observe