the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours 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 which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
Church wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some corruptions though if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it followes not that I am separated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches 'till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the Communion of all Mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again And if several other persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own safety And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say we do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant no one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssins may have some errors or corruptions yet if they be not fundamental and be not joyned as necessary to be approved in order to their communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully communicate with them it doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from error and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the communion of the Catholick Church Because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errors conditions of communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches Pag. 336. To rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwaies imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin But besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawfull that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary for separation is not lawfull but when it is necessary Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose beleif is necessary to Salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the beleif of fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is just and reasonable And it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause which is pleaded for it Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free like a Common field to all inhabitants Now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to that right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yeild their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Page 358. Although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herself and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the Party so limiting Communion As it was in the Case of the Donatists who were therefore charged with Schisme because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge that they were The sum of this discourse is that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsical and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church But still what ever Church makes such extrinsical things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yeild not to them is Schismatical in so doing For it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church And the saparation from it is so
Uniformity came out of about 9000 Ministers that kept in and had laid by the Liturgy before about 7000 Conformed to the altered Liturgy before any of them ever saw it save a few by declaring their Assent and Consent the Act being known before the Book could be Printed and about 2000 were silenced by that Act. How they behaved themselves since then is so well known and I have here and oft declared and how the Plague first and the burning of the Churches next and the Kings Licenses next did give them the opportunities and calls which made more publick Preaching seem to them a duty that I shall not make recital of it § 5. All this while abundance of invectiues were poured out against them by many of the Conforming Clergy in Press and Pulpits and especially in the ears of great men to whom we had no access but seemed what such men described us to be The new Laws against Conventicles and the Oxford Act of Consinement had been added to the first Many were hunted up and down their Goods and Libraries distrained many were imprisoned some there died The Informers and Prosecutors grew weary They saw the severity came most from the Prelates and the Parliament the King being not for severity therein The Justices grew unwilling of Execution the Preachers reprove them and call on them to put the Laws in Execution they are greatly offended at the Kings Licenses they continue to accuse us for Schism at least and some of Sedition though we invaded none of their Temples nor askt them for any part of their maintenance And the Parliament and Prelates were so sharp against us that we durst not tell the world what we refused in Conformity and why lest we put them upon more severity nor indeed could we do it the Press was lockt up by so great penalties But while we were forced to silence we were lowdly called to to say what we stuck at and what it was that we would have And after 17 years such calls I ventured to name the things and hence is the storm of the present indignation § 6. I had before proved the wilful desertion of our Ministry especially when the King Licensed us to be odious Sacriledg To this I am told of mens power to silence such as they think deserve it I grant it if they truly think so so may they on just cause alienate Churches and Church-lands and hang Malefactors but not when no such cause is given nor at their pleasure § 7. When in the fitst Plea for Peace I had stated the case of our Nonconformity I intended to bring the Proofs of each particular supposed sinful as I after found occasion And meeting with abundance that accused us of disloyal rebellious Principles I largly delivered my own and many others judgment of Civil and Eccesiastical Authority the power of Princes and the duty of Subjects and therein also wrote some Answer to Four Accusations brought against us 1. That we pretend Grace against Morality 2. That we hold that things Indifferent became unlawful if commanded 3. I largly confuted Bishop Morley's false Accusation of my Doctrine of the Magistrates power to command things unlawful by accident and Dr. Parker's Doctrine of Scandal 4. I confuted them that extend our Non-conformity to things which we refuse not All this in the second Plea for Peace which none yet that I know of have answered § 8. And lest any should think that we are all for Negatives I wrote a Treatise of the only Terms of Universal Christian concord which I value above all the rest being assured that the Churches will never otherwise be healed than by that impartial sure and easie Catholick way which some have reviled but none since that I know of confuted One Learned Bishop that had a chief hand in our present Impositions and ejection I desired to tell me which is the way of Christian concord if this be not And he maintaineth That the only way is to obey the Colledg of Pastors who are to govern the Catholick Church through all the world per Literas formatas Where this Colledg as one governing power do meet or how they signifie their Majority of Votes and in what cases and who must gather the Votes from Abassia to Moscovie and in how long time and how they shall come to all men with certainty and whether the ejected silenced and excommunicated c. may appeal to them c. I could not learn § 9. In the same Book I sufficientiy confuted Mr. Dodwell's great Book which denyeth not only the Churches and Ministry which are not by uninterrupted Episcopal Ordination but also the ordinary salvation of all such Churches as having no covenant promise by valid Sacraments delivered them He hath pretended some defence in a late Book of Letters to which if they can be Printed I hope to give easily a satisfactory reply § 10. In the same book he Publisheth some old Letters of his to me for the Diocesan frame of Government the notice of which beforehand given me caused me to Publish a full Treatise of Diocesan Episcopacy containing the Reasons why we cannot swear to it or approve it or swear never to endeavour any reforming alteration of the frame here setled and exercised And whatever Mr. Dodwell pretendeth to the contrary if this Treatise do not fully answer his Letter and justifie us in this part of Nonconformity I am unable to judg of the Cause but am willing to recieve any better information § 11. And because I find false History not the least cause of ordinary mistakes and men cry up Diocesan Prelacy as the ancient and chief cure of Schism I gathered an Abstract of the history of Bishops and their Councils that the true matter of fact might not be so commonly mistaken as it is § 12. At the same time came out against me First a book of Mr. John Cheyneys the mistakes of which I manifested in an Answer And afterward old Letters of Mr. Hinkleys to which I had an old Answer which I cast by and now Published and another Accuser abounding with untruths called the Impleder and another called Reflections or Speculum c. And another Book of Mr. Cheneys full of most pitiful mistakes All which with Justice L'Estrange's Dialogue and someothers I answered together in a Book called the Third Defence ef the Nonconformists c. § 13. But the Accusations of Dean Stillingfleet in his Sermon made the loudest noise In the Answer to which I chiefly desired to have come to some understanding agreement with him about the true state of our Case and Controversie and to that end craved his answer to several necessary questions but was not able to procure it And now in his large Book where I hoped to have found an Answer to them I look for it in vain Yea though Mr. Hikeringhill roughly provoked him but to expound his own Text and tell us intelligibly what the same Rule is which the Apostle
p. 73. He acquits them from Schisme that separate if the Church be Schismatical 74. I desire the Reader then to Read my few Sheets called A search for the English Schismatick More mistakes p. 74 75. Chap. 6. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church The Doctors Schismatical Error Confuted p. 76. He by this condemneth Apostles and Evangelists that were Itinerant and unfixed such as Bucer de Regno Dei would have sent abroad my exceptions about Churches and Ministers justified and his Calumny detected p 80. Whether I give too much to the People or am against the Rights of Patrons or Magistrates p. 82. Many more Calumnies to p. 89. He accuseth me as accusing them for naming the sins that I dare not commit p. 89. More of his vain Accusations to p. 92. Whether he be for silencing us p. 92. More of his Calumny p. 99. Considerable Quere to him p. 94. How he would drive men to Separation p. 95 96. He is come to Self-condemning Gentleness in expounding his Rule and Text Phil. 3. 16. p. 97. His sad Ennumeration of the causes of just Separation p. 98. Chap. 7. He begins his Third Part with more false Accusations p. 99. His History for Diocesan Churches against Parochial found fallacious p. 100 c. His vain Plea for the English Frame p. 106 c. He saith It s probable while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few p. 108. And Dr. Hammond saith No Subject Presbyters whether John Fox were the Publisher or Prefacer of the Reformatio Legum c. p. 109. Discipline hard but not unnecessary p. 111. Chap. 8. What the National Church of England is fully discussed and the Doctors Self-contradictions detected He denyeth any true Political Church of England He and we more agreed than he and other high Church-men that are for a Constitutive Political Government p. 112 113 c. He maketh it an introduction of Popery to hold that a Church must have a Constutive Regent Church-power and so fasteneth Popery on the Masters of his cause Chap. 9. That the mutual Consent of Pastors and flock is necessary to the very being of their Relation About Thirty Proofs from Antiquity that the Universal Church was for about 1000 years of that mind and decreed it p. 128 c. The necessity of consent proved from the Nature of the work where the reasons of it are all plainly opened p. 133. c. The Doctors contrary surmises and false Histories fully confuted p. 136 c. Chap. 10. Of the imposed Use of the Cross in Baptisme and denying Baptisme to the refusers p. 153. His vaine excuses confuted Whether the Cross be used as a Sacrament His disingenuous falsifying my words of the use of Crucifixes and other Images p. 156 c. What the Papists ascribe to Sacraments p. 168. Chap. 11. Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicate Nonconformists for not Communicating when ipso facto Excommunicate be guilty of Schisme p. 163. Chap. 12. Of the English sort of Sponsors and the Exclusion of the Parents Duty p. 167. see more in the Postscript Chap. 13. Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth p. 171. Chap. 14. Epistles and Testimonies Compar'd with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Jo. Glanviles Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant With a Letter of his to the Author and a Digression about Dr. Lewis du Moulin his Published Picture and Death-bed Repentance A Postscript of five notices viz. 1. Of a new Observation of the Trade of taking mony to be Godfathers to Poor mens Children and missing Baptisme for want of mony 2. A Letter of Mr. W. Rathbands of his Fathers judgment and Practice 3. An Excellent Confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets History of the extent of Dioceses and Choice of Bishops fully proving that the old Bishops were Parochial or Congregational and always chosen by the People or not made theirs without their free Consent By a Learned and faithful Minister 4. An Excellent Vindication of the silenced Ministers by a Conformist c. 5. My Apologie for the Nonformists Preaching Written by me and Comming out with this ERRATA IN the Preface Sect. 17. line 13. read pleaded for l. 17. after Clergie and People add of â—â—â—â—â—iâ—â—â—sâ— So Evident is the right of Synods Clergie and People AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS c. CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformists especially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord about the true Nature of Schism and who is the Schismatick written by him at age in his most owned books and not in youth in his Irenicon I stand to all my words against Schism which he hath cited and so I doubt not but he stands to these following of his DIscourse of Idolatry of Rome p. 7. Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of destroys Salvation The Papists consent p. 43. I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest that hath the best groundâ— and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 194. 195. 1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to distruction For this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more But this is a principle of Natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of it or to contradict the end and designe of it 2. The Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church Pag. 216. 217. 1. It is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contâ—ine in them the unquestionable will of that God whom we are bound to serve and it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfyed in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easly a matter for men to mistake in the waies they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should enterpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God or do they think
that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged 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 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 For 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 And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
far from being Schism that being cast our 〈◊〉 that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours 〈◊〉 the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humor came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church For not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church And in such Cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism Page 366. The truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one Age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation more necessary so far is it from making it more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves what reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an Argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too Page 540. Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them Page 541. Saint Augustine saith not only in that place but in very many others that Saint Peter did sustain the Person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven That he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter non habent illustrem intellectum nisi eum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestasse personam have no clear sense but â—hen they are referred to the Church whose person he did 〈◊〉 Pag. 542 He means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that Saint Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church It primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church Pag. 544. His Lordship saith your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no body collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more powerto the representing body of it than a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise than with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing body had failed in trust or truth And this power no body collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it His Lordship saith that the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning faith it hath not by an immediate institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example CHAP. II. Some Animadversions on his Preface § 1. THE impartial searchers after truth have hitherto thought that a strict method at least agreeable to natural Logick is more effectual than confusion or wordy popular haranges And that the controversie should be very cleerly stated before it can be profitably argued And therefore that first all ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed that men may not mean several things and not understand each other and to Define and distinguish where it is needful and then Affirm or deny and then effectualy prove But why this worthy person doth far otherwise with us both before and now it is more his part than mine to give the reason I dare not say he cannot Nor I dare not say he can but will not but all that I can say is that he doth not and I know not why § 2. The Preface of his Book called Unreasonableness c. Is so much answered already by Mr. Lob that I will not lose time by doing much to the same again And there is a posthumous book of Dr. Worsleys called The third part of naked Truth which hath strenuously handled the same chief matter for Scripture Sufficiency against unnecessary Impositions It being supposed though not there expressed 1. That he speaketh not against the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which must be determined one way or other As Time Place Utensils Translationwords Metres tunes c. 2. And that a man that intollerably breakes Gods Laws by Blasphemy Treason Murder Fornication c. is not to be tollerated because he erroniously thinks he keepeth them § 3. His sad saying that there is no improbability that the Jesuites should be the first setters up of the way in England which he calls the Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer Mr. Lob hath opened as it deserveth in part but to say all that it deserveth would seem so harsh that I have reason to think that it would but more offend than profit him § 4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth The cause of his impatience I leave to himself But that it is much within him I must conjecture when in his defence of Bishop Laud I read him saying to the Papists To speak mildly it is a gross untruth And yet wen I speak not so plainly to him and I think never more sharply he accounts it a continued Passion Rage Railing Intollerable indiscretion c. Do I give him harder words than these Yet I profess I smart not by them I take them for very tollerable words in comparison of his miscarriges in the cause in hand Several sorts of men I have found think other men speak in passion 1. Those that hear and read with passion They think that which angers them came from anger 2. Those that are too high to be dealt with on even terms and think the plain speech which agreeth to others is a contempt of such as them 3. Those that commit miscarriages so gross and defend causes so bad as have no names but what are disgraceful and then take all that is said to anatomatize their cause and errours to be said against themselves
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
is it his own â—…act or is he therefore not obliged by it Had it not been requisite that you should have justified all that we stick at as unlawful before you charge us with crossing this Rule Sect. 56. p. 204 c. My words in many Books against Schism are cited and praised Reader he tells men the measure of their Charity and Church Communion viz. That men that do as much as I do that forbore so long Sacramental Administration that gathered no Church that held constant Communion with divers Parish Churches that have wrote so much and earnestly against Schism shall yet be ejected silenced pay 40 â— a Sermon and lie in Jails unless I will do more While Bishop Lauds design for widening the Church doors to the Papists is magnified by Heylin and others as a good work Sect. 13. First he finds but two justifiable Causes of Separation but p. 213 214. he hath found three and no more 1. Idolatrous Worship 2. False Doctrine imposed instead of true 3. Making and imposing things indifferent as necessary to Salvation Ans 1. Readers do you remember how even now he exposed to odium the peoples judging whether the Pastors be Hereticks And now they may separate for false Doctrine 2. I intreat him to think again of these Cases following 1. What if the Worship be not Idolatrous but Blasphemous or utterly Ridiculous tending to contempt of God 2. What if it be in an unknown Tongue 3. What if the Church have no true Minister I am glad you are not for separating for want of Episcopacy or Episcopal Ordination 4. What if the Church want half the Church-Worship as to have Preaching and Prayer without Sacraments or Sacraments without Preaching or Prayer or Preaching without Prayer c. 5. What if the Church be but schismatical Have you written all this Book to draw men to you from the Independant Churches and do you now tell us that the people may not separate from them on the account of Schism 6. What if a Church require me to tell or subscribe to one known Lie or to say that I believe what I do not or to justifie thousands that I think obliged by a Vow if they break it What if they impose any one sin on me without which they will not receive me to Communion 7. What if I remove for my Edification from a drunkess ignorant Priest to the Church of a wise and holy Pastor 8. Are we looser than Pope Nicholas that forbad men to hear Mass from a Fornicating Pricst 9. I would you had spoken to Edification and told men what false Doctrine it is that will allow Separation and whether it 's false Doctrine preached or only imposed on the person to be owned If the former is it all false Doctrine or but some and what Verily if all you are tenfold more a Seperatist than I For I look to hear sometimes some words of false Doctrine in most Pulpits even of Conformists If it must be heresie it self I will not separate for once hearing it if the Church profess it not If it be imposed Error that you mean take heed lest you justifie Separation from your Church by the new Article of Infants certain Salvation And when both Arminians and Anti-Arminians subscribe the 39 Articles tell us whether those Articles are true in both their senses or whether the sence be not the thing subscribed or whether one half of them should separate You are too unmerciful to your self but what kind of Churches should there be upon your terms I find no more in his second part which I am much concerned in CHAP. VII The Reply to his Third Part The beginning Sect. 1. IN his third Part I first find my self accused p. 242 c. And that is not only by insisting on a false accusation of my words but adding a confutation of himself as if he discerned not that he did it In Treat of Concord I say If it holdeth that God instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion then none of the rest instituted by man may deprive them of their priviledges granted by Christ I put it but with an If it be so because I told them my own doubt of it After I say To devise new species of Churches without Gods Authority and impose them on the World yea in his name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks is worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies and Liturgies And can any Christian deny either of these But he saith This supposeth Congregational Churches to be so much the institution of Christ that any constitution above these is unlawful and unsupportable which is more than the Independant Brethren do assert And is any word of all this true 1. The Independants much insist on this I refer him now but to Amesii Medul de Eccl. Minist 2. Do the words suppose that which is plainly excepted in them If it were granted 1. That the Congregational only are so instituted 2. And that others are not set over them by God 3. And yet are obtruded in his name without his authority 4. And all Dissenters called Schismaticks then I say they are unlawful 5. To coufute himself plainly he confesseth that I say The question is not whether the Archbishops should be over the particular Churches as Successors to the Apostolical and General Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office Nor whether Patriarks Diocesans Lay-Chancellors as Officers of the King exercising Magistracy be lawful And yet he saith that I suppose the contrary He next pretends to give my Reasons And the chief is because it overthroweth the species of Gods making when I only say That which overthroweth it is unlawful which is not the Archbishops that are over the lower Bishops but those that put them all down and governed the Carkasses of the mortified particular Churches as the lowest Bishops of many score or hundred such as themselves And he saith I am for the full exercise of Discipline within the particular Church while he confest I spake not against Archbishops And yet he saith This is a fair representation of my opinion Sect. 2. Coming to prove our Episcopacy the same with the Primitive he pretendeth to confute me That which I asserted was 1. That by the first Institution and Constitution every Church no bigger for number of Souls than one of our great Parishes had a Bishop of their own one or more I disputed not 2. Yea that for the first two hundred years if not more no one Bishop had a Church so big as some of our Parishes at least except Alexandria and Rome and even of them it is not certain that they had more Souls 3. That after by degrees the case was altered But yet after there were many Meetings like Chappels a while there was but one Altar 4. After that those Chappels had Altars but so as that at certain times of the year the people of the Cities
which setleth humane Government and obedience chosen the name of Parents rather than Princes because Parents Government is antecedent to Princes and Princes cannot take it from them nor disoblige their Children But Self-government is more natural than Parents and Parents and Princes must help it but not destroy it 7. When persons want natural capacity for Self-government as Infants and Ideots and mad-men they are to be governed by force as bruits being not capable of more 8. Family Government being in order next to personal Princes or Bishops have no right to overthrow it at least except in part on slaves of whose lives they have absolute power If the King impose Wives Servants and Diet on all his Subjects they may lawfully chuse fitter for themselves if they can and at least may refuse unmeet Wives and Servants and mortal or hurtful Meats and Drinks 9. Much more if Princes and Patrons will impose on all men the Bishops and Pastors to whose charge care and Pastoral conduct they must commit their Souls the people having the nearest right of choice and strongest obligation must refuse as discerning Self-governing judges such whose heresie negligence ignorance malignity or treachery is like either apparently to hazard them or to deprive them of that Pastoral help which they find needful for them and they have right to as well as other men 10. The gain or loss is more the Patients than the Imposers It is their own Souls that are like to be profited and saved by needful helps or lost for want of them And therefore it most concerns themselves to know what helps they chuse 11. If all the Kings on earth command men to trust their lives to a Physician who they have just cause to believe is like to kill them by ignorance errour or treachery or to a Pilot or Boat-man that is like to drown them they are not bound to obey such mandates Yea if they know an able faithful Physician that is most like to cure them they may chuse him before an unknown man though the King be against their choice 12. Scripture and experience tell us that God worketh usually according to the aptitude of means and instruments and learned experienced Physicians cure more than the ignorant rash and slothful and good Scholars make their Pupils more learned than the ignorant do And skilful able experienced holy Pastors convert and edifie much more than ignorant and vicious men And means must accordingly be chosen 13. If the Pastoral work skilfully and faithfully done be needful it must not be neglected whoever forbid it If it be not needful what is the Church of England good for more than Infidels or at least than Moscovites And for what are they maintained by Tythes Glebe and all the dignities honours and wealth they have And for what do men so much contend for them 14. It is natural to generate the like and for men to do and chuse as they are and as their interest leadeth them Christ tells us how hard it is for a rich man to be saved and how few such prove good And the Clergy themselves do not say that all the Patrons in England are wise and pious Many Parliaments have by our Church-men been deeply accused And most Parliament men I think are Patrons Others say that most Patrons not chosen to Parliaments are worse Some Preachers complain of Great men for fornication drunkenness excess idleness yea Atheism or infidelity If many or any be such are they like to chuse such Pastors as all godly men may trust in so great a Case Or would not such Princes chuse such Bishops 15. Men are as able and as much obliged now to take heed to whose conduct they trust their Souls as they were in all former Ages of the Church forecited 16. The Laws and Bishops of England allow all men liberty to chuse what Church and Pastor that Conformeth they please so they will but remove their dwellings into the Parish which they affect And in London thousands live as Lodgers and may easily go under whom they will chuse And if they like him not may shift as oft as they please 17. Parish bounds are of much use for Order But Order is for the thing ordered and not against it And Parish bounds being of humane make cannot justly be preferr'd before the needful edification and safety of mens Souls though such humane Laws bind where there are no greater obligations against them 18. The Law of keeping to Parish-Churches where we dwell and the Law that giveth Patrons the choice of all the Pastors and Princes of Bishops are of the same efficient power and strength 19. Casuists usually say even Papists that are too much for Papal power that humane Laws bind not when they are against the end the common good especially against mens salvation And a Toletan Council decreeth that none of their Canons shall be interpreted to bind ad culpam but ad poenam lest they cause mens damnation And many Casuists say that Penal Laws bind only to do or suffer and bearing the penalty satisfieth them save as to scandal 20. Yet we still acknowledge all the right in Princes and Patrons before-mentioned and that Princes are bound to promote Learning and piety and so to see that due places countenance and maintenance encourage faithful Ministers and that all the Subjects have meet Teachers and submit to hear and learn And that they should restrain Hereticks and Soul-betrayers from the sacred Office-work and judg who are to be maintained and who to be tolerated 21. But this power is not absolute but bounded And if on the pretence of it they would betray the Church and starve Souls like the English Canon that binds all from going to an able Pastor at the next Parish from an ignorant unpreaching vicious Reader men are not bound to obey it but to provide better for themselves unless materially not formally for some time when not obeying would do more hurt than good or as a man must forbear publick assemblies in a common Plague-time And so much to open the true reason of the case in hand And Paul's words to Timothy 1 Tim. 4. 16. tell me this care is not unnecessary Take heed to thy self and to the doctrine and continue in them for in doing this thou shalt both save thy self and them that hear thee § 17. come now to the Doctor 's words who p. 312. undertakes to prove 1. That the main ground of the peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon A Bishop must be blameless Ans The word main may do him service but no hurt to my cause Main signifieth not Only who doubts but the People were to discern the Lives of chosen persons But without coming to the Ballance among many causes which is the main I have proved that there were more And among others that Christ and his Apostles bid them take heed how they hear beware of false Prophets and their leaven beware of the concision A man
Nor unwillingly desire the Pastors visitation and prayers in his sickness 7. Nor unwillingly seek and receive absolution c. I mean he can do none of this that doth not consent And is he a Pastor to such men that refuse all this It 's a shame to think that learned men should bend their wits to prove that the Sun is not light Did the Church at Alexandria ever after chuse their Bishops and not before All the Alexandrian Church-History tells us that the people there indeed exercised too great power after this no place on earth more tumultuous and unruly And yet no place where the Bishops were more secular and more assumed the power of the Sword But the people chose them 4. And if it had been true that the choice lay only and absolutely on the Presbyters how came they to have so long two Bishops and two Churches besides the Arians 5. And he wisely overlooketh the Question who chose those Pres byters that were the chusers of the Bishop § 22. He next instanceth ex Euseb l. 6. c. 10. in Germanion and Gordius Ordained by the Bishops in Narcissus place at Hierusalem Answ 1. His argument if any must be this Eusebius saith the Bishops Ordained them not mentioning the peoples consent or choice Ergo their consent or choice was not used How easily might he have known that we would deny the consequence Doth any of us deny that the Bishops were the Ordainers of Bishops 2. And even the words of Eusebius confute him saying That when Narcissus shewed himself again the brethren no doubt the Laity intreated him to enjoy his Bishoprick again § 23. His next instance is Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life time appointed his successour acquainting only the Clergy with it And Augustine prevented the peoples disturbance and got them to receive him Answ Thus it is some mens work to confute themselves It 's a known thing that the peoples right was so universally and unquestionably acknowledged that the Canons forbad any Bishop to nominate and chuse his Successour lest it should forestall them and prejudice their choice And why else was the peoples resistance feared And what did Austin but perswade them to consent And why doth he mention that the People consented and received him if they had no consenting Vote or right on just cause to dissent It would be an odd argument to prove that a woman had no power of choice in Marriage because one was put to perswade her to consent which proveth the necessity of her consenting § 24. He next tells us of Austin's own nomination of his Successour Eradius Answ More and more against himself All that men do is in danger of miscarrying by their faultiness Wise men would do their best to prevent this and the peoples consent being of necessity they sometimes will pre-engage them so Austin's predecessour thought it the craftiest way in his life-time to take in Austin for his Coadjutor or fellow Bishop two in a City lest the people should miss of so excellent a man But this being against the Canons Austin confesseth that he did it ignorantly and disowneth it Yet lest the people who grew more and more faulty should mischuse he in his life time commendeth to them Eradius that their love to him might procure their acceptance Doth not this prove that their choice or consent was necessary Reader if the Doctor can perswade thee that the Country have not the choice of Parliament men because some are commended or named to them thy yielding is too easie § 25. The next is the story of Paul the Novatian out of Socrat. l. 8. who hath but seven Paulus was advising his Clergy to chuse his Successour They told him their fear of their own disagreement and to prevent it intreated him to nominate one He made them promise to stand to it and named Mercianus in a sealed paper Doth not this instance prove that the Bishop had not power to chuse one of himself And was not his fear of the disagreement of the Clergy And doth any of this disprove the peoples consenting right And would the Doctor perswade us that even the Novatians excluded them § 26. He tells us that the Greek Canonists think that the Council of Nice took away all the power of election of Bishops from the people and gave it to the Bishops of the Province Answ 1. In all reason he should have cited those Canonists for it 's strange that yet their following Customs and Canons should say the contrary 2. There is not a word in the Canon cited about election but only ordination that all the Bishops in the Province should Ordain a Bishop But when that cannot be there shall be at least three present and three more consenting by writing And what 's this to the Case the Peoples election or consent § 27. Yet he bringeth more against himself viz. Can. 18. Concil Antioch which is That if one be Ordained Bishop and go not to the Parish because the people refuse him he shall have the honour and Office of a Bishop not troubling the peace of the Church which plainly saith what I have oft said That the people have no power to hinder any from being Ministers or Bishops indefinitely in the Church Universal but only to judge whether he shall be theirs whereas the Ordainers have power in both cases and usually were the first chusers though the people had a refusing or accepting power as there appeared cause § 28. Next he addeth more for what I plead that Basil Ordaining one first perswades the Senate and People to accept him Adding Their way then was if the people did agree on a person to be Bishop to petition the Metropolitan and Synod who had the full power to allow or refuse him Answ Is not this a strong proof that the people had no such agreeing or chusing power because the Metropolitan and Synod also had their vote what need Basil perswade them to accept him when they had no power to refuse Did Basil or any Synod say all people are bound to accept those whom we chuse be they what they will and not to try them and judge themselves § 29. And here I desire the Reader to remember 1. That we take the chief trust to be by Christ committed to the Ordainers for taking in fit men and keeping out the unfit They being the only Judges with the person himself who shall be a Minister of Christ in the Church Universal And neither Magistrate or People have a power to chuse or refuse them 2. That the Universal Church being one body of Christ though Ministers have not such a charge of each others flocks as the particular Bishops of them have yet are they bound to give them all the help they can as neighbour families to help each other And therefore to offer to vacant Churches the best they know and perswade them to accept them when they are at a loss or need advice 3. The
execution of it on others or the person in foro externo But still the Church hath done her part in Legislation to oblige as aforesaid § 6. He saith Persons excommunicate are to be denounced so every six months that others may have notice of them Answ 1. But are they not excommunicate then before they are so oft denounced yea or at all as far as aforesaid § 7. He saith I have fully answered my own Objection by saying I am not bound to execute the sentence on my self Answ 1. He would not say that he approveth the answer For if he do he confuteth himself that would have us execute the silencing sentence on our selves and the sentence against publick worship in any way but theirs 2. My reason is because I take the unjust sentence as invalid else I were bound in foro interiore 3. But sure the Church at least relaxeth that mans obligation to present Communion by shewing her will if she did not oblige him to withdraw Read over the words of the Canon and see whether they make them not as unintelligible and flexible to what sense they please as they do the words of the Act of Uniformity and Liturgy § 8. As to his two cases in which the excommunicate may be schismaticks for not communicating 1. We question not the first Just excommunication excludeth none but the guilty Here then indeed is the state of our Controversie Had he proved that in all the cases before cited it is just to excommunicate us he had done somewhat when now for want of it he betrayeth his cause 2. His 2d is If they form new Churches Answ 1. Is forming new Churches and not communicating with the old ones all one Our present question is of the later So that this great Accuser seemeth plainly to absolve all from being bound to Communicate with them who are unjustly excommunicate and gather not new Churches 2. But may not the unjustly excommunicate that cannot on just terms be restored worship God in some publick Church Doth such a wicked sentence bind men to live like Atheists till death or deprive them of their right to all God's Ordinances even many Papist Doctors and Councils say the contrary And how else do you justifie the Church of England against the Papists charge of Schism § 9. p. 372. He still seemeth to think that His own and others reasonings may change all the truly honest Christians in the Land to hold all the things imposed lawful Answ These thoughts of the Bishops in 1660. and 1661. have brought us all to the pass that we are at And if after 20 years so great experience of the inefficacy of all their Disputes yea and Prisons and after the notice of the nature and different cases of men they still trust to bring us to Concord on these terms disputing with such men is in vain The Lord deliver us from them CHAP. XII Of the English sort of Sponsors and the exclusion of Parents duty § 1. PAge 380. He saith I several times mention this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with us yea as the greatest objection Answ Four places of my writings are cited and all will testifie to him that will read them the untruth of the Doctors words This is an unhappy course of accusations I can find no word of The unlawfulness of the peoples joyning in Communion with you on this ground On the contrary I have taught men how to make this very action in them lawful viz. By getting if possible credible Sponsors of the old sort and agreeing with them to be the Parents Representer and promise as in his name or at least but as his second undertaking the Education of the Child if he die or apostatize which was the old sort and himself to be present and signifie his consent by gesture though he may not speak But I have shewed 1. That this must be done besides the Churches order that hath no such thing 2. That subscribing to the Churches order herein is unlawful 3. That the Church which refuseth the Child lawfully offered ought not to blame that person that cannot or will not make such shifts but getteth another Pastor to Baptize him whom they sinfully refuse But this is not to prove it unlawful to have Communion with you But it 's lawful to use better also when they can being thus repulsed by you § 2. He saith The Parents are to provide such as are fit to under take that office Answ 1. No one is fit for it as used by the Liturgy but an Adopter that taketh the Child for his own For he undertaketh the Parents work And it 's lis sub judice whether any others undertaking besides a Parent or Owner can prove the Child to be in the Covenant as offered and have right to the seal and benefits Atheists and Insidels Children are unholy 1 Cor. 7. 14. 2. If any were sit few Parents can get such as will understandingly and deliberately and credibly promise them to do all that Godfathers must by the Liturgy undertake I never knew one in my life that seemed to the Parent to mean any such thing much less to do it I have in my younger time been Godfather to three or four But we before agreed with the Parents to intend no more than to be Witnesses and the Father to be the Entitler and the undertaker I did in 1640. Baptize two by the Liturgy without Crossing and never more in 6. or 7. years after because of the imposed corruptions Mr. Kettilby the Bookseller unless his Father had another Child of the same name baptized the same year was one But his Father gave him his name and promised all his own duty and his Uncle and Aunt standing as Sponsors we before agreed that they should signifie but Witnesses and friendly helpers in case of need 2. But what if the Parents are bid provide such that is no discharge of their own part nor are they bound to cast their duty on others § 3. He saith as to the Child 's Right to Baptism that the Godfathers stand in a threefold capacity 1. Representing the Parent in offering 2. Representing the Child in promising 3. In their own as undertakers of his education c. Answ 1. I will not till he confute them repeat my proofs that in the Church of England's sence the Godfathers are not the Parents representatives at all nor speak in their name 2. If they were then when the Parents both are Atheists Infidels Hobbists scorners at Godliness Hereticks the Godfathers can represent them but as they are and their own faith entitleth not the Child because they stand in the persons of Atheists Infidels c. your Church doth not like this doctrine 3. And as to their representing the Child quo jure is the doubt It cannot be done without some representing power given them And who gave it them 4. And as to the third Person in this multiform