thing of such great importance and Separation so mischievous as he hath represented it that the Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces and to run into wayes of Separation Hath not Mr. Baxter represented and no Man better the Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride Conceitedness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion And after all this must they upon a conceit of Purer Administrations and Less Defective Wayes of Worship be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces and run from one Separate Congregation to another till they have run themselves out of breath and left the best parts of their Religion behind them How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People and the Pernicious consequences of complying with them and Must the Reins be laid in their Necks that they may run whither they please Because forsooth they know better what is good for their Souls than the King doth and they love their Souls better than the King doth and the King cannot bind them to hurt or Famish or endanger their Souls But Why must the King bear all the blame if Mens Souls be not provided for according to their own wishes Doth the King pretend to do any thing in this matter but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament And why did he not put it as it ought to have been that they know what makes better for their own Edification than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament and the Governors of this Church do and let them make what Law 's and Orders they will if the People even the rash and injudicious Professors as Mr. B. calls them do think other means of Edification better and other wayes of Worship less defective they are bound to break through all Laws and to run into Separation And How is it possible upon these terms to have any Peace or Order or any establish'd Church I do not remember that any of the old Separatists no not Barrow or Iohnson did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation as these are The Brownists declare in their Apology That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions which may and will fall out among Men even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof Where a Church is rightly constituted here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers than either Iohnson or Ainsworth The ground of Separation with them was the want of a right constituted Church if that were once supposed other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England it is said That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please nor without just and weighty cause Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body Those just Reasons are 1. If a Man cannot continue without sin 2. In case of Persecution Not one word of better means of Edification For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion So in their Declaration at the Savoy they say That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship ought not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church whereunto they are joyned And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes 1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin and that in Three cases First Want of Ordinances Secondly Being deprived of due priviledges Thirdly Being compelled to any thing in practice not warranted by the Word 2. In case of Persecution 3. Vpon the account of conveniency of Habitation And in these Cases the Church or Officers are to be consulted and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church No allowance here made of forsaking a Church meerly for greater means of Edification And how just soever the reason were they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Officers and to tell them why they depart And Mr. Burroughs condemns it as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church Yet this is now the main support of the present Separation and meer necessity hath driven them to it for either they must own the Principles of the old Separatists which they are unwilling to do or find out others to serve their turn but they are such as no Man who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church can ever think fit to maintain since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and confusion as Mr. Burroughs truly observed But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches That for his part he hath seldom heard any but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London where he hath been but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Scholâ—rs or judicious Hearers than to such as need more Practicall Subjects and a more plain familiar easie method Is this the truth of the case indeed Then for all that I can see the King is excused from all blame in this matter unless it be a fault to provide too well for them And Is this a good ground for Separation that the Preaching is too good for the People Some Men may want Causes to defend but at this rate they can never want Arguments Yet methinks the same Men should not complain of starving and famishing Souls when the only fault is that the Meat is too good and too well dressed for them And on the other side hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preachers and that he really fears lest meer Non-Conformists have brought some into reputation as conscientious who by weak Preaching will lose the reputation of being Iudicious more than their silence lost it And again But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation To which he adds But the Grand Calamity is that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited and none so commonly give way to their Ignorant Zeal to Censure Backbite and Reproach others as those that know not what they talk of Let now any Reader judge whether upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself their having better means of Edification can be the ground of leaving our Churches to go to Separate Congregations unless injudiciousness and self-conceited confidence
not being confederated themselves can convey a right to their Children About these and other such like Questions those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes and can neither give others nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them 2. The consequence of this is that they must baptize many with a doubting mind and must exclude many more than they can baptize For Mr. B. saith if he took a dogmatical faith it self or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit I would baptize none because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith and who not The like others are as ready to say of his serious voluntary not prevalently contradicted practical profession or at least that no man can baptize with a good Conscience till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace or are not actually confederated with them And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right how few Children will be left that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers as Mr. B. calls them and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches Communion As to kneeling at the Communion I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration which I have not answered in another place Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion viz. that upon the same Reason these are imposed the Church may impose some use of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer 1. That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him or else he shall not stay in his House at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father because he hath some scruples whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not not meerly on the account of its significancy but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature This he thinks so weighty a scruple that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition on his continuing in his house and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fathers House and drawing away as many of his servants from him as he can infuse this scruple into But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his disobedience For faith he to his Father Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence and to make this the condition of my staying in your House Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son and ask you blessing Morning and Evening and am very willing to sit at your Table and depend upon you for my subsistence Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat You say it is a token of respect I say for that reason I ought not to do it For how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect It is true you require no more now but I consider what you may do and for all that I know the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you for that is a token of respect in some Countries next you may require me to kiss your Toe for that is a token of respect used some where and who knows what you may come to at last and therefore I am resolved to stop at first and will rather leave your House than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns that may represent the Trade and Company they are of would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it to say What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last it is true the matter is small at present but I consider it is a Badge it is a moral significant ceremony a dangerous teeming thing no man knows what it may bring forth at last for how can I or any man living tell but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat Would such an unreasonable jealousie as this justifie such a mans refractoriness in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company than submitting to wear the Badge of it So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required 2. There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies than what it hath already done supposing that it might do it on the same ground Because the Church hath rather retrenchâ—d than increased Ceremonies as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required as a condition of Commmunion But besides our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies because the very number of them supposing them lawful is a burden of which S. Augustin complained in his time and others had much more cause since and therefore for that cause many were taken away And withall it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine which it must do if it increased our Cermonies so as to make a new argument against them from the number of them 3. There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us For 1. As to the Vse of Images our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry and that from such reasons as cannot extend to our Ceremonies viz. from the express Law of God and the general sense of the Primitive Church which allowed and practised
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they
Separating upon their Iudgment of their Ministers Abilities and Fitness you can never secure them from Separation from any Church or Ministers whatsoever And no setled Church in the World could ever subsist long without infinite disorder and confusion if this were allow'd For Mr. B. thinks them uncapable of the Ministerial Office in the Peoples Judgment 1. Who have not tolerable Ministerial Knowledge or utterance 2. Who are Heretical 3. Who malignantly oppose serious Religion as Hypocrisie or a needless thing 4. Who by their wicked lives do more hurt than they do good From such saith he St. Paul bids turn away And of all these things the People are to be Iudges and so may Separate 1. When they are unsatisfied about the Ministerial Knowledge or utterance of their Ministers As for their Vtterance we may allow them to be Judges of that but I never heard before that St. Paul did bid People turn away from their Ministers if their Vtterance were not thought to be tolerable For he intimates that some complained of his utterance and had him in contempt for it But as to Abilities and Knowledge fit for Ministers Are not the People admirable Judges How few how very few even of those of the people who pretend most to Knowledge in Religion have any tolerable understanding of the true principles and right notion of it I do not speak only of Artificers and Tradesmen but of those of better education who either by prejudices or want of due application of their minds to such things are subject to great mistakes about Religion and yet may be very good men If such as these are so unfit to Judge of Ministerial Knowledge and the Doctrines of Religion What shall we say to the common sort of raw and injudicious Professors of Religion Mr. B's experience in the World is not so little as not to know and be sensible of the truth of this among the People most apt to divide and Separate Is it not then a strange thing he should thus subject the Judgment of Ministerial Knowledge to such a Company of Triers as these But suppose they do allow their Ministers to pass for men of tolerable abilities and reasonable good utterance there is a harder task yet behind and that is to approve themselves to the People to be Sound and Orthodox For saith Mr. B. 2 If they be Heretical they may without sin separate from them But how shall a Man escape being thought Heretical by the People if they have a mind to make him so i.e. if he crosseth their humor and delivers such Doctrine as doth not please them for that is generally their Standard for Heresie And they cannot well have any other unless you will suppose all the People to be learned Divines and every Man obliged to read and understand Epiphanius and Binius and then perhaps they may be competent Iudges of Heresie and come at last to be even with the Divines for having been their Judges so long in that matter Let us now suppose a Person of great value and esteem among them for his other Ministerial Abilities should happen to be thought unsound in the Point of Iustification and to draw too near to the Papists in it and this not only be said by the common People but they are abetted and encouraged in it by the greatest part of their Teachers who tell them this is a Fundamental point Articulus stantis cadentis Ecclesiae that they had as good give up the Cause of Reformation as yield in that matter as some have said I would fain know in this Case whether upon Mr. B's Principles the People are not bound to Separate from such a Man notwithstanding his other Abilities The like may happen as to many other Doctrines which the People are as incompetent Iudges of as they are in this matter Let us yet suppose that such a Man may pass for sound in the main among the People what shall we say to him if under pretence of Curing Divisions he exposes good People and lays open with great freedom and plainness their Factious Turbulent Censorious Vngovernable humor not omitting their Injudiciousness but forgetting all the while that these same injudicious People with all their other faults were once his Electors and are still his Iudges suppose that he tells the World That for their Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride and Self-conceitedness they are their grief and their shame that they are endanger'd by Divisions principally because the selfconceited part of the Religious People will not be ruled by their Pastors that it is they that tempt the Papists to use Fire and Faggot that will not be ruled nor kept in Concord by the wisest and holiest and most self-denying Ministers upon earth Notwithstanding all these very kind words of themselves Do not we think such People would call all this Reviling and Reproaching the People of God and say That such men do malignantly oppose serious godliness as Hypocrisie and let their lives be what they will they do more hurt than good and therefore by Mr. B's own Rules they are bound to Seprate from the Wisest the Holiest the most Self-denying Ministers upon earth Which I think is sufficient for the present to shew the mischievous consequence of putting so great a power of Judgment and Separation upon it into the hands of the People Sect. 10. But this is not all the encouragement to Separation which is given to the People by their power of Iudging and Withdrawing from their Ministers For 2. They insinuate That the whole Body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such Faults as the People may lawfully Separate from them as will appear by these Particulars First They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing and then tell the People over and over It is no sin to separate from Scandalous Priests especially when the Scandal is notorious as it is in this case Mr. B. goes about to prove This by many Arguments when he Writes in the name of the Party now let us see what Judgment they pass upon Conformity In one place he saith That the Love of Peace and the fear of frightning any farther from Parish Communion than I desire as though such suggestions did not do it enough do oblige me to forbear so much as to describe or name the additional Conformity and that sin which Non-conformists fear and fly from which maketh it harder to us that desire it to draw many good People to Communion with Conformists than it was of old No doubt of it if you give such broad intimations as these are what a horrible scandalous sin Conformity is Nay he maketh it an inexcusable sin when he saith in the Preface to his Plea That more like Truth hath been said for the lawfulness of Anabaptistry Poligamy Drunkenness Stealing and Lying in case of necessity than any thing he ever yet read of all that he hath there described i.e. full Conformity He chargeth us
the duty of every Christian to Worship God not only in purity of heart but according to the purity of Gospel-Administrations Now observe that there was nothing the Donatists pleaded so much and so vehemently for as the purity of Gospel-Administrations This was that which Parmenian Petilian and the rest still contended for as appears by the Plea they put in for themselves in the last Conference at Carthage We are they say they that have suffer'd persecution for maintaining the Purity of the Church this hundred years because we would not comply with their corruptions we have been turned out of our Churches and been sent to Prison and had our Goods taken from us and some of our Brethren have been killed and others hardly used for so good a Cause And Can such Men as you condemn them for a horrible Schism I tell you they are as Innocent as our selves for they went upon the same grounds 3. That every Christian is obliged to live in the use of all God's Ordinances and Commandments Now Is not Discipline one of God's Ordinances And Do we not make want of Discipline one of the Reasons of our Separation And therefore the Donatists were very honest Men for they were just of our mind And these being the chief grounds we go upon we cannot but in Brotherly kindness speak this in vindication of them against your unreasonable severity I know you tell them often There will be no end of Separation upon these terms for why might not Maximiaâ—â—us do the same by Primianus that Majorinus did by Caecilian and so make frustum de frusto by which they did minutaâ—im concidere cut the Church into so many little pieces that could never be joyned together again But let me tell you that the force of your Argument comes to this That Men may choose one Pastor to day and another to morrow and a third the next and so turn round till they are giddy and run â—hemselves out of breath in a wild Goose chase till they sit down and rest in Irreligion and Atheism And is this all these are his own words The Apostle commands us to prove all things What! By running from one Communion to another Mâ—â—t we needs therefore never hold fast that which is good unsetled heads and unsetled hearts will be â—â—ndring let them go 't is a good riddance of them 〈◊〉 they be obstinate but where this humor has destroyed one Church this rigorous forcing of Pastors on the People as Caecilian on the People of Carthage has divided and destroyed hundreds Thus far the Advocate-General for Schismaticks Judge now Reader whether the Causes of the present Separation as they are laid down by my Adversary do not equally defend the Donatists in their Schism and his making so light a matter of Schisms doth not give encouragement to Men to make more Sect. 27. But I shall not send him so far back as St. Cyprian and St. Augustin for better instruction in this matter but I shall refer him to one whose Writings I perceive he is better acquainted with even Mr. Baxter Who hath very well in several Books set forth the great Mischief of Divisions and Separations He doth not look upon them as petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies little troubles to the Church the effects of levity and volubility of Mens Minds but he quotes above Forty places of Scripture against them and saith That the World the Flesh and the Devil are the causes from whence they come that they are as much the Works of the Flesh as Adulteries Fornications c. that contentious dividers are carnal Men and have not the Spirit that Divisions are the Wounding nay the Killing of the Church as much as lieth in the Dividers and that to Reform the Church by dividing it is no wiser than to cut out the Liver or Spleen or Gall to cleanse them from the filth that both obstruct them and hinder them in their Office that Divisions are the deformities of the Church the lamentation of Friends and the scorn of Enemies the dishonor of Christ and the Gospel the great hindrance of the Conversion and Salvation of the World and of the Edification of the Members of the Church That they fill the Church with sins of a most odious nature they cherish Pride and Malice and Belying others the three great Sins of the Devil as naturally as dead flesh breedeth Worms In a word the Scripture telleth us that where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work And is not this a lamentable way of Reformation of some imaginary or lesser evils Yet farther he saith They are uneasie to the persons themselves and rob them of the sweetest part of Religion they lead directly to Apostacy from the Faith and shake States and Kingdoms having a lamentable influence on the Civil Peace Is all this nothing but the natural effect of the levity or volubility of Peoples Minds This learned Author begins his Book with a very starched relation of his admirable Reading That in his time he hath read an Elegant Oration in praise of a Quartan Ague another upon the Gout a third upon Folly but there wants one yet in the praise of Schism and I never met with one that doth offer fairer toward it than he doth For he not only excuses it from the natural cause of it and the small trouble that attends it but he implies it to be the consequence of Mens using their Reason and not being made Bruits to be managed with a strong bit and bridle But Mr. Baxter will teach him another Lesson for he saith that Schism is a sin against so many and clear and vehement words of the Holy Ghost that it is utterly without excuse Whoredoms and Treason and Perjury are not oftner forbidden in the Gospel than this that it is contrary to the very design of Christ in our Redemption which was to reconcile us all to God and to unite and centre us all in him that it is contrary to the design of the Spirit of Grace and to the very nature of Christianity it self that it is a sin against the nearest bonds of our highest Relations to each other that it is either a dividing Christ or robbing him of a great part of his inheritance and neither of these is a little sin that it is accompanied with Self-ignorance and Pride and great unthankfulness to God that Church-dividers are the most successful servants of the Devil being enemies to Christ in his Family and Livery and that they serve the Devil more effectually than open enemies that Schism is a sin which contradicteth all Gods Ordinances and Means of Grace which are purposely to procure and maintain the Vnity of his Church That it is a sin against as great and lamentable experiences as almost any sin can be and this is a heinous aggravation of it that it is commonly justified and nâ—t repented of by those that commit it and it is
cited out of his History but not one that comes near any proof of this matter The 1. proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia where there were no Christians Therefore in Theodoret's time there was no Diocesan Episcopacy The 2. shews that in a small City of Thebais Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished and there were but a few Christians yet there was a Bishop Who ever denied this where there was a prospect of converting more as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased new Bishops were made which this is very far from The 3. proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force without any Synod of Bishops or Choice of the Clergy or Request of the People I suppose by this time Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church which I am sure he had not from Theodoret nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria The 4. is intended to prove that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly which met onely in one place at once But it is very unhappy that Theodoret shews just the contrary in that place for he saith that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his very words to whom he saith Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church Which Mr. B. thus translates Valens found the Orthodox even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them of which he dispossessed them I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret and I dare say he will see cause to admire it But if any one can imagin that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation for my part I must give him over as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to but of what it was in its settled state The 5. is from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers I am ashamed to reade much more to confute such arguments as these For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation The 6. proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism It is true Theodoret saith Doliche was a little City and so he tells us Cyrus was no great one but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese which for any thing we see in Theodoret might be as large as we have evidently proved from him the Diocese of Cyrrhus was Let the Reader now judge whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches viz. for personal Communion and men make another is not this a violation of Christ's Command and setting up Man against God I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation and therefore the extending it to more can be no violation of Christ's Command or setting up a new species of Churches as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meekness towards his Adversaries charges me for speaking against this principle of his with pleading for presumption profanation usurpation uncharitableness schism what not What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness Why I set down a saying of his as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed That is not to the business for that which I quoted it for was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mens devising and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable and that the imposing it as Divine is an intolerable usurpation and all this at the same time when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord My business is now to shew Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this I need no more than one of Mr. B. ' s own Cautions in his Premonition viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops as he calls them over Parochial Bishops as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace There are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter ' s Arguments to prove that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office was settled for all following Ages 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form but we never reade of any abolition discharge or cessation of the Institution 〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of mutability as settling one form of Government for one Age onely and no longer 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastours Sacraments c. and to say they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with to the end of the world Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave Successours in the care and Government of Churches have a great deal of weight in them and overballance the difficulties on the other side As upon this occasion I think fit to declare From whence I argue thus That which is onely a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing
that Christ hath invested the Guides of this Church not chosen by the People with a Power to make Laws and Decrees prescribing not onely things necessary for common order and decency but new federal rites and teaching signs and symbols superadded to the whole Christian Institution c. I answer that such a Church hath Power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the word of God which on that account others are bound to submit to and to take such care of its preservation as to admit none to its privileges but such as do submit to them and if any disturb the Peace of this Church the Civil Magistrate may justly inflict civil Penalties upon them for it All which is no more than any settled Church in the world asserts as well as ours And I wonder this should be so continually objected against our Church which all Societies in the world think just and necessary for their own preservation As to the Guides of the Church not being chosen by the People I shall speak to that afterwards One objection more he makes which the others did not viz. I had said that by whole or National Churches I understood the Churches of such Nations which upon decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of Governing themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common ties and Rules of Order and Government Such Churches I say have a just right of Reforming themselves and therefore are not liable to the imputation of Schism from the Roman Church Would one think what unlucky Inferences he draws from hence 1. Then all that remain within the Empire were bound to continue in the Communion of the Roman Church What if I should deny the continuance of the Roman Empire then all would be safe But do I any where say that being in the Empire they were bound to submit to the Roman Church No but as the Nation resumed its just civil Rights the Church might as rightfully recover it self from Papal Vsurpations not laying the force of one upon the other but paralleling them together and the advantage of the argument is on the Churches side 2. Then where Princes have not resumed their just rights as to Reformation they are Schismaticks that separate from Rome That doth not follow for in the cases before mentioned separation is lawfull but no Reformation is so unexceptionable as when there is a Concurrence of the Civil Power My last Adversary doth not deny a National Church from consent in the same Articles of Religion and Rules of Government and Order of Worship but then he saith such ought to be agreeable to the established Rule of Holy Scriptures And therein we are all agreed So that after much tugging this point is thought fit to be given up Sect. 24. The next thing to be considered is the interest and Power of the People as to the choice of their Pastours for want of which great complaints are made by my Adversaries as a thing injurious to them and prejudicial to the Church and that we therein go contrary to all Antiquity Dr. O. puts the depriving the People of their liberty of choosing their Pastours among the Causes of Separation Mr. Baxter is very Tragical upon this argument and keeps not within tolerable bounds of discretion in pleading the People's Cause against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws and he tells me I go against all the ancient Fathers and Churches for many hundred years and am so far a Separatist from more than one Parish Priest and therefore my charge of them is schismatical and unjust and recoileth on my self who instead of God's Rule accuse them that walk not by our novel crooked Rules which may make as many modish Religions as there are Princes When I first read such passages as these I wonder'd what I had said that might give occasion to so much undecent Passion as every where almost discovers it self in his Answer and the more I consider'd the more I wonder'd but at last I resolved as Mr. A. doth about the Assembly that Mr. B. is but a man as other men are and for all that I see of equal passions and that upon little or no provocation For I had not said one word upon this Argument What then would Mr. B. seek a Cause to express his anger against me as if I had allowed Princes to set up what Religions they please Surely he thought himself writing against Hobbs and Spinosa then No but thus he artificially draws me into this snare I spake much against Separation How then They would never have separated if they had not been silenced therefore my being against their separation shews I am for their silencing As though these necessarily followed each other What is this to Princes imposing what Religion they please Thus Then Magistrates by their Laws may put out Nonconformists and put in Conformists But have we not the same Religion still But saith Mr. Baxter these must be my supposed Grounds that Magistrates may appoint what Religion they please and those are Separatists who do not obey them Is not this admirable ingenuity to rail upon a man for suppositions of his own making However Mr. Baxter will have it so let me say what I will The People's part he will take and let me take that of the Magistrates and Laws if I think good and since they are fallen to my lot I will defend them as well as I can as to this matter Mr. B. appearing very warm in this business what doth Mr. A. coming after him but make it the very first and fundamental Ground of their Separation viz. That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to choose its own Pastour and every particular Christian the same Power to chuse his own Church Nay then I thought we were in a very fair way of settlement when the Anabaptists in Germany never broached a looser principle than this nor more contrary to the very possibility of having an established Church for it leads to all manner of Schisms and Factions in spight of all Laws and Authority in Church or State The Authour of the Letter goes upon the same principle too and saith The Guides of the Church are to be chosen by the People according to Scripture and Primitive practice This I perceive is a popular argument and a fine device to draw in the common People to the dissenting Party whatever becomes of Laws and mens just and legal Rights of Patronage all must yield to the antecedent Right of the People But to bring this matter to a strict debate we must consider these three things 1. What Original or inherent Right and Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficient ground to resume it And from thence we shall understand whether some of the People's consenting to hear the Nonconformists