that keepeth you from seeing how strongly you confute your self Is there a word in Acts 15. to forbid all Church communion with those that taught even this subverting false doctrine How many Texts be there that intimate that the Churches long without a prohibition held communion with the erronious judaizing Christians Till they grew obstinate and grew up to a Heresie and were the Separaters themselves and did subvert the Gospel and faith of Christ But yet prove that such doctrine is held by our Parish Churches and I will leave them Do not the Independents offer to subscribe the Doctrine of the Church of England Sure then they think its Doctrinals to be sound Sect. 47. E. B. By two Arguments you labour to defend your irregular way of Communion 1. That in the Primitive Churches there were many corruptions which the Apostle writes against but doth not advise any because of them to separate But I answer It is not corruption or error barely considered as such that we account to be a sufficient ground of separation But the Imposing of that error with on high hand and making a submission to it at least in our practice and outward observance the very condition of Communion This we say is a thing which necessitates us to make a separation R. B. Mark that you distinguish not of Corruption or Error nor except any but what is Imposed And when I had answered all this so fully why will you deign to confute a Book while you disdain to take notice what it saith 1. Who would have thought that you are so much looser in your communion than we are I will separate from that Church which in the essential matter Pastor or all the flock after admonition retaineth such Corruption and Error as is directly contrary to any essential point of Christianity though they impose it not on others But by these words it seems as scrupulous as you are you would not separate from Hereticks or Ungodly ones if they do not Impose their Heresie and Impiety 2. How oft have I urged you to prove that our publick Parish Ministers whom I advise men to hear do Impose any more than you your self do By choosing what Chapter to read you impose on the people to hear that Chapter then or none By choosing what Place Hour Method Words yeâ— Matter and Metre Tune c. you impose upon the people to joyn in all these or not to have communion with you therein And so our Teacher doth by reading Common-Prayer and wearing the Surplice impose on us to hear him so reading or to stay away But he maketh no Laws he commandeth us no Ceremony They are commanded by others and not by him And it is not in your own practice of any thing forbidden of God that I advise men to have communion with such but only in Gods true Worship though in the circumstances or manner the Minister himself say or do something that is forbidden as every Teacher in the world doth though not in the same degree It is one thing to submit to be present at the Worship which the Pastor performeth in some faulty manner And another thing wilfully to do evil your self or to approve of his failings or your own Sect. 48. E. B. To which I add only this that however the presenting our bodies at a Worship which we do not inwardly approve of may render us excusable and justiste us among men yet we are sure it will not in the sight of God who hates hypocrisie R. B. Though you confound I must distinguish the essentials of the Worship from the circumstances and outward imperfections in the manner I do inwardly approve of the matter or substance of the Worship which I joyn in in the main and labour to pray with my heart when I joyn in the Common-prayer though I consent not to the whole Method nor to the defects And when I hear a man in free prayer use confusion disorder unseemly words and when I hear one man drop the error of an Arminian or a Lutheran another of an Antinomian another of an Anabaptist another of a Separatist c. in his prayer I do not inwardly approve of that error or disorder any more than of the defects of forms And yet if it were hypocrisie to be present I would joyn with no man living Can all your hearers inwardly approve of all that you say if you preach and pray but as you write If they can its time to pitty them And are they Hypocrites else for joyning with you Sect. 49 E. B. p. 14. 1. This is clear in Scripture that our Lord Christ who was himself holy and separated from sinners did never call or design his Church to be an impure mixt body of holy and unholy without any distinction blended and hudled up together but to be an holy separate people and to depart from unrighteousness R. B. 1. Remember Reader for he will not remember that but even now he told us that it is not Corruption and Error barely as such that is a sufficient ground of separation without Imposition And now here is nothing but Mixture of Holy and Vnholy Reconcile these if you can 2. Christ that was perfectly separated from sinners had yet ordinary communion with sinners in a sinful or culpable manner of performance unless the Jews were all perfect Therefore our separation must be such as Christs was in our measure 3. Impurity and unholiness and sin is not the Matter of Gods Call or designment either in the Church or out but of his Permission But Communion with those Churches which by permission have sin and impurity in them is a commanded thing And they that must depart from iniquity must not alwayes depart from the worshipping Assembly where some unrighteous persons are Your argument if it be any must run this Christ did never call or design his Church to be an impure mixt body of holy and unholy The Parish Churches which you perswade us to communion with are impure mixt bodies Therefore the Parish Churches are such as Christ never called or designed them to be Suppose we grant you the Conclusion Whoever is a sinner is such as Christ never called or designed him to be But your Question intimateth that you would argue thus Whatever Church is such as Christ did not call it or design it to be is not to be communicated with But all the Parish Churches are such as Christ did not call or design them to be Ergo The Minor you prove Whatever Church is an impure mixt body of holy and unholy c. is such as Christ did not call or design them to be But the Parish Churches are such But I answer you 1. A Church is no Church that wants the Essentials required by Christ But he that will not communicate with Church or person that wants the Perfection which Christ calleth them to shall communicate with no Church or person on Earth 2.
me was He that is not sound in the Doctrine of Justification or to that sense And what made them threaten to disown him if he would not cease such wayes Did ever sober men go about with such general accusations and expect that men answer to they know not what 6. But what are the few words that would satisfie you A yea or a nay What if I say Sir I think I am sound in the doctrine of Justification and I think you speak evil of the things you know not Would that have satisfied you Sect. 32. E. B. And in another place you tell me that you have written the better part of above fifty Books against the prophane the Jews and the Mahumetans I will not enquire to what purpose for I am very confident none of those did ever read what you have written against them But add to these your several other Treatises your Books will in all amount to as many Volumes as Tostatus writ concerning whom and all such kind of Writers you once gave this true Character though since you have most unhappily forgotten it I cannot but account all those Tostatus's as impudently proud who think the world should read no bodies works but theirs Pray Sir read this passage again and compare it with what you have already written and what as I hear you do yet further intend to write and then tell me in earnest what you think of your self R. B. 1. Seeing our debates about Church-dividing must needs be turned to this Whether I am proud I grant you the conclusion that I am proud and what would you have more 2. Your ductile followers that never saw Tostatus know not how you cheat them by these words and that you measure by Number and not by bulk and twenty of some of my Books will not make one of Tostatus's for bigness If you go to number how many more wrote Origen But a Sheet is not so big as a large Volume in folio 3. I never accused Augustine Chrysostom Calvin Zanchy c. as imitating Tostatus And I have not wrote so much as they 4. The best way to cure one that writeth too much is to perswade men not to buy and read it and then the Booksellers will not print it And till you can do that you see that all men are not of your mind And by what obligation am I bound to be of your mind alone rather than of many thousands that are of another and those that still importune me to write more Is it pride only to differ from you and to write against your judgement Or were not the Fathers and Divines fore-mentioned with Rivet Chamier Beza Luther c. yea and Dr. Owen too proud if large Writings be a sign of Pride 5. When you question to what purpose it is to write Books against the Prophane and Jews and Mahumetans that is against Infidelity and to defend the Christian faith you shew what a Guide you are to the Church 6. When you are confident that none of the Prophane c. did ever read what I wrote against them either you believe your self or not If you do how unfit are you to be believed of any that know no better what is credible in a matter of fact Could you think for instance that my Call to the Vnconverted hath been printed so oft I think some scores of thousands and translated into French by Mr. Eliots as he said he was doing into the Indian Tongue and no prophane person ever read it You will take this very instance its like for my pride which you make necessary to shew your temerity and deceit But if you do not believe your self how much less should others believe you 7. Will no sober Readers think that you set your self to do the Devils work against the service of the Church of God by seeking to silence us from writing by your contumely and scorns even from writing against the Prophane and Infidels at a time when we are by others silenced from publick preaching Let your conscience tell you if I had obeyed you from the first and never written whether the Devil or most that have made use of what I wrote would have thankt you more 8. Did not the Primitive Teachers Apostles and others leave us their Examples for Writing as well as for Vocal Teaching And are they not two wayes of predicating or publishing the same Gospel And if so would he serve God or the Devil that would scorn us all as Proud for preaching so much as the best men do 9. And do you not yet see how much you have of the same silencing Spirit which you profess to separate from 10. But your warning for a review hath brought me to Repent of and Retract that passage against Tostatus as being too rashly uttered Because 1. He wrote when good Writers were more scarce than now 2. Because he might be willing that other mens works should be preferred before his and that his own should not be wholly read but partly perused on particulas occasions 3. And it is unseemly to reprove industry Now we come to the Question after all this Sect. 33. IN stating of this Question You do E. B p. 10. your self grant so much that you scarce leave any thing to be either disputed or denyed R. B. Remember Reader that my Professed design on the Title page is 1. To invite all sound and sober Christians by what names soever called to receive each other to Communion in the same Churches 2. And where that which is first desireable cannot be attained to bear with each other in their distinct Assemblies and to manage them all in Christian Love 3. And that under the first head I particularly prove that It is lawful to hold Communion with such Christian Churches as have worthy or tolerable Pastors notwithstanding the Parochial order of them and the Ministers Conformity and use of the Common-Prayer Book This last is the true state of the Question which I affirm with these two limitations or explications That is 1. That it is lawful statedly to communicate as a member with such a Parish Church where we cannot consideratis considerandis have Communion with a better upon lawful termes 2. That those that can have stated Communion with a better may yet lawfully communicate sometimes with such a Parish Church as we may do on just occasion with a Church of Neighbours or Strangers where we live or come Yea that we ought to do so when some special reasons as from Authority Scandal c. do require it These are the summ of my Assertions Though my main cause oblige me as much to prove to a Conformist that he may have Communion with a Church of Non-conformists yet I had no call to prosecute that particularly as I had to the other for the reasons which I rendred at large And this being the Case judge now of this mans Dissent and furious opposition whether sober people have reason to
know it if indeed you think that all their Churches are to be separated from as well as the Parish Churches If this be your mind I suppose you are but a Preacher to Auditors your self and not a Pastor to any Church He that thinks no Truth should be concealed for fear of suffering should not carry it in darkness and dissimulation to the Pastors and Churches about him if really he believe them to be no Pastors or Churches or not to be communicated with But I think that you better deserve to be disowned by them than they by you Certainly few or no Protestant Church that I have known will say that it is restored to the primitive pattern and Purity in degree If that therefore be your meaning you do separate from all the Churches in the world But if you mean not in Degree but in Essence I still challenge you to prove that the Churches in question want any thing Essential or need a Restoration to that which they never lost Sect. 52. E. B. p. 15. So that more may be said for separation now when whole Churches are out of order and corrupt than could be at that time when corruption had infected only particular members R. B. 1. Is it now come to that Is it the number corrupted that must decide the case Who can tell where to find this Proteus sometime it is the mixture of holy and unholy sometime it is not bare corruption without Imposition And now it is the numbers corrupted whole Churches And in the next sentence you shall see what 2. Is the whole Church any thing besides the particular members Is there any other matter or any form besides the Relation of the particular members 3. I challenge you if you can to prove any corruption in the Churches in question which is not consistent with the essence I know not so much errour or harm in the people of the Church that I now joyn with where I live as Paul chargeth on the Corinthians or Galathians Though I suppose the primitive Ministry and gifts more excellent than any of ours Sect. 53. E. B. For it is not as I said before Corruption barely no nor Imposition barely that is a sufficient ground for any to separate For where some lesser errours are held but not Imposed or where only necessary things are imposed we shall not forbear Communion But when errour is once imposed and by a strong hand forcibly maintained notwithstanding all admonitions and endeavours of reformation here we must separate or consent to sin R. B. Better and better Here it is granted that neither Corruption barely nor Imposition barely will justifie separation But by Corruption and Imposition barely seemeth to be meant such formaliter quoad actum without including the degree of the matter For it is expounded of Lesser errours held and not Imposed or of necessary things Imposed So that if it be Imposed on us to Worship God it will not prove us no Christians we are beholden to you for this clemency And if we should mistake a point of Genealogie or Chronologie it will not un-un-church us This is something 2. Well but what is the crime that maketh our Communion unlawful when errour is once imposed c. so then if you can speak sense any errour Imposed will do it What if it be Imposed on the Church to use a Translation of the Bible that hath some errour in And is there any without Must that Church needs be separated from And yet the Church that used the same Voluntarily and therefore more sinfully is not to be separated from What if erroneously it be imposed on the Church to meet at an inconvenient time or place What if some flaw or errour in Chronologie on smaller-matters were in their imposed Confession which the Pastour erroneously subscribeth to It seems an Infallible Imposing Church may be communicated with and no other But do you not know that there is a Ministerial as well as a Magistratical forcing Imposition Every Pastour that speaketh as by Commission from Christ Imposeth somewhat on the people He Imposeth doctrine and Method and words in prayer and times places utensils orders metres tunes as aforesaid Must all these be separated from that is almost all the Pastors in the World And is there no remedie 3. But perhaps you lay all the stress on a strong hand and force If so prove that your Ministerial Imposition of errour in your Prayer or Conduct doth not make Communion unlawful and yet that forcible imposition doth As if Voluntary reception made less the sin Prove that the Church of the Jews was nullified whenever any errour was imposed by authority Or when the Pharisees then in power had corrupted it in Christs time by force If this were your meaning then separation could scarce be Lawful till there was a Constantine a Christian Emperour who being not infallible might force or impose something amiss whereas you before talk of an early universal failing necessitating separation It seems then that no Countries are so unhappy as those that have Christian Magistrates who being fallible impose some errour And that in all the Ages and Countries that have Heathen or Infidel Rulers notwithstanding Church Corruptions not forced Separation is a sin 4. But I would fain know whether it be the Imposition that nullifieth the Church or makes Communion unlawful or only the obeying that Imposition If it be the Imposition then a Heathen Prince may nullifie the Church at pleasure If it be only the obedience then 1. Must it be once obeying or continual What if Aurelian or Dioclesian forbid Church-assemblies will once obeying them nullifie all the Churches or make their Communion unlawful 2. Why will not obeying a Minister or deâ—â—ver make it as unlawful as obeying a King 3. Why doth not the doing it without constraint as is said make it as unlawful as obedience 5. Is it the King and Parliament or the Bishops whose Impositions have this sad effect If the former then as is said it was 300 years after Christ before separation was lawful If the latter then it is not force only that doth it And Independent or Anabaptist or Presbyterian Pastors may Impose as well as Bishops For the Bishops disclaim all coercive power in the Church as I have shewed to Dr. Moulin Sect. 54. E. B. The second Argument is the example of the former Non-conformists who you say were all against separation c. R. B. Here you cite a passage of Mr. Hildershams that the authority of man is not to be set against Gods and that we may know more than those that went before us c. And did not I tell you so my self who dissenteth from you in this Bring your proof from Scripture against them and us and we will hear you Or give us but good proof that you are a wiser and better man than they and are better taught of God and we will yield this by-reason from authority But to bring
unlawful and not to be communicated with A Classical Church as such is not to be communicated with An University as such is not to be communicated with Therefore such or such a particular Church as such is not to be communicated with which is a part of that Kingdom that Classis that University E. B. a Christian is a member of a Society which is not to be owned Ergo E. B. a Christian as such is not to be owned What more apparent than that the consequent should be but this Therefore such a Church should not be owned as it is a Part of such a Kingdom Classis Vniversity c. which is all accidental to the Church So that here is a double Equivocation and more than four terms 1. As such speaketh as I said one essence in the Antecedent and another in the Consequent 2. The word Communicating speaketh several things in the Antecedent and in the Consequent For to Communicate with a Diocesane Church is not to Assemble with it in publick Worship For a Diocess in our sense cannot so assemble but it is to own the Diocesane Relation and Prelats But to Communicate with a particular Church in a Parish is to have personal Communion in the Worship of the Assembly So that this is your Argument if put in plain words If it be unlawful to Communicate with a Diocesane Church as such by owning the Diocesanes and the relation to them then it is unlawful to communicate with a true particular Church in a Parish or bounded Parochially in the Assembly Worship as it is such a particular Church which is part of that Diocesane Church But c. Answ Yes It may be unlawful to communicate with it as a Part and that by Diocesane Communion but not as a true Church of Christians by assembly communion Or thus It is unlawful e. g. to have communion with the Army of Maximus Cromwel c. as such But many Christians are parts of the Army of Maximus Cromwel c. Therefore it is unlawful to have communion with those Christians Because there is the same reason of the parts as of the whole Ans 1. Christians are not parts of the Army as Christians but as those Souldiers 2. It is unlawful to have Military Communion with them as parts of that Army but not to have Christian Communion with them as Christians May not even the simple now easily see if you will not by what ignorant erroneous reasons you zealously labour to deceive the people of God to divide the Churches Sect. 39. E. B. 2. A Parish Minister is in that station and office but a servant of the Diocesane Bishop and therefore rightly called a Curate and if we may not own as you grant the Bishop I think it will necessarily follow that his substitute and curate hath no reason to expect any respect from us R. B. The same fallacy is so palpable that a small measure of reason may discern it 1. It is false that he is in that Office But a Servant The truth is the Law maketh him not a servant at all but only an Ecclesiastical Subject But if you had said He is but a subject it had not been true if But be exclusive of his other Pastoral Relation For he is by the Law the Priest the Teacher the Rector of that Parish Church in subordination to the Bishop 2. But whatever he be by the Law of the Land or by the Bishops will the faithful Ministers in Parish Churches are by Christs own Commission the true Pastors of the flocks having all things essential to that Relation 3. But deceive not your Reader by intimating that I speak of a Parochial Minister as Parochial not quâ but qui For Parish Bounds are but Accidents of the Churches It is Christian Churches as such though Parochial or so bounded that I speak of A Christian Pastor with his Christian flock e. g. Mr. Gataker Mr. Marshall Dr. Stoughtion Dr. Seaman Mr. Sedgwicke Dr. Gouge and such like do constitute a true Christian Church though in Parish bounds And as such Pastours they are the Ministers of Christ and not servants to Diocesanes And their subordination to Diocesans by the Law is but accidental to their Pastoral office How many volumes of the old Non-conformists give you this Answer And if you have read them why would you dissemble it and give no Reply to it If you never read them is it modesty to despise them Sect. 40. E. B. p. 11. If Persecutors are not to be communicated with nor such as have consented to our silencing which you also allow though I could wish you had proved it better than by the obscure disputable example of Martin then I think very few if any of the Parish-Ministers but must even upon that account also be separated from since either by open consent or else by an Vndoing and Pernicious silence they have all made themselves guilty of that grievous sin There being but little difference in the sight of God between the persecuting Brethren our selves and by not sharply reproving it seeming to approve of it in others R. B. 1. Your repeated mistake of my allowing that which I only meddle not with but exclude from the question or oppose not I pass by 2. Every one that is by remote consequence guilty of our silencing doth not consent to it Otherwise You and I and all the silenced Ministers in England do consent to it For he is blindly impenitent that will deny that we are any way guilty of it 3. You do but cover one open sin with another even separation with uncharitable slander of many hundred godly Conformable Ministers whom you accuse of this consent I know scarce any one of my acquaintance whom I take for a faithful diligent Pastor and whom I perswade men to hear but they are grieved at the heart for the silencing of so many and such I hear some complain of it privately and some lament it publickly and earnestly pray that God would restore them But I never heard one of them own it 4. I plead not for Vndoing Pernicious silence I think too many are deeply guilty by it My testimony in this case is visible among the Writings whose number you prove me proud by But if you make this a proof of the duty of separation you will make mad work of it For 1. You know not mens opportunities to speak And where there is no opportunity there it s no duty 2. You know not who hath spoken their dissent plainly and who not It may he some have done it in the Convocation It may be some have done it privately and some publickly already in due season And we are not to expect an account from them of all that they say 3. To whom is it that you would have all the Countrey Ministers speak against our silencing To those that did it they have no access and they are out of hearing And must they
he know that it is the Truest Copy that falleth into his hands and that all that differ from that are false Do not corrupt Copies come to other mens hands Why then might they not do so to his 10. How can he judge of the various Readings of all the rest of the Copies which he never saw 11. If a Translation will serve him to judge of the various readings in the Original are they not in the Translation fore-judged of to his hand 12. Is any man Infallible in Translating Is there a promise of Infallibility to them 13. Do not the Translations differ 14. How shall men know which Translation is truest when none is perfect 15. Must he see all Translations that shall judge or will one serve as aforesaid And how shall he judge of those he seeth not 16. Is it by Inspiration from Heaven such as the Prophets had that the true Reading must be known or to ordinary at least sanctified Reason by evidence in the Text it self If the former none but Prophets can know it If the later you can prove it to a Rational or sanctified man from some intrinsick evidence For instance suppose a man never saw but two Printed English Bibles and was never told which is right by others and in one is Printed Heb. 12. 2. he despised the same viz. the Cross and in the other he despised the shame for so two of them do differ how shall he prove which Printer erred 17. Do all the Men and Women that are Godly actually know the true and uncorrupt copies and readings by the Book it self without mans testimony Or what is the name of that one Man or Woman in the World that you know who without ever hearing it from man could tell all the true readings from the false or could tell that the Canticles or Ecclesiastes or the Book of Jonas were Canonical and that the Book of Baruck Wisdom and Pauls Epistle to the Laodiceans and Clemens to the Corinthians were not Do you know his name that ever knew this by Reading the Bible only without being ever told it by any If not and if it be sine quâ non to mens receiving of the Bible it self that some one brings it to their hands judge how wisely and fairly you deal with poor souls to talk at such a confident and yet confused rate And 18. Let me ask you one question more Is it necessary to Salvation that men be able to read Hath God promised it to all or most that shall be saved Faith cometh by hearing as the most ordinary way of old And he that will Preach the Gospel to most Nations under Heaven must Convert more than can read or but a few And if you Preach the Gospel to a Congregation that cannot read do you recite all the various readings in the Hebrew and Greek to them If not can they judge of that they never heard If you do are they ever the wiser as to know of themselves which of them is the right 19. But if you say that you suppose not only Grace but great Learning and Study to discern these things how cometh it to pass that the most Learned Studious and Godly men do still so much differ about the various Readings as Lud. Capellus Vsher Heinsius Bootius De Dieu and others And how come the Churches in the Ages next the Apostles to leave out so many Books of the Canon as many of them did while others received them And Luther Althamar and others to set no more by James's Epistle than they did And so many Godly men long and yet to receive much of the Apocrypha 20. How durst you that speak so hardly of the Jesuits honour them so much as to make your silly ones believe that their doctrine in this is no worse than mine when in so many Books I have left that at large which may confute you And you wisely ask me to tell you whether I will take the Jesuits into my Communion because they hold the same with the Arminians with whom I will communicate so they hold the same with all Christians that there is a God and a Christ and the Scripture true But it is not for this that I renounce their Communion but for some things else Will you communicate with none that holdeth any thing yea any errour which the Jesuits hold Or did you dream that the Arminians hold all that the Jesuits hold Or did you dream that the Arminians hold all that the Jesuits hold Sir I am ashamed to spend time-upon such triflings Sect. 59. E. B. The former Non-conformists thought there was no possibility of salvation for a Papist But you tell us that you affect not the honour of this Orthodoxness R. B. It is confutation enough of such an accuser to recite the words which he accuseth which are Vnless you do as Mr. Perkins doth to make it good be so charitable to all the millions else among them as not to call them Papists except they practically hold the most pernicious opinions of their Councils and Divines I confess I affect none of the honour of that Orthodoxness which consisteth in sentencing Millions and Kingdoms to Hell whom I am unacquainted with So that I distinguish of Papists properly so called who practically hold all the Popish errours and Nominal Papists that call themselves such or are called so by others who know not or practically hold not the pernicious part of their errours These latter I refused to undertake to judge to Hell and consequently to damn all in France Spain Italy Germany c. who are called Papists And if this accuser be more valiant and dare damn them all I do not wonder that he dare damn me for not damning them For he that can eat and digest an Oxe will never stick at one crumme more But he should not be also so cruel to the Reader as to put him to read my words twice over because he dismembers them to make them seem to have some loathed sense Sect. 60. E. B. p. 19. The former Non-formists said The filth of nature cannot be sufficiently spoken of But you c. R. B. 1. When you tell us in what common Confession of theirs they say so I shall try whether you say any truer than in the rest 2. Reader I answered him on this point before by no less than twenty instances proving that Nature may be too ill spoken of And he saith nothing to any of them but sings over his old song again Is not this a fine man to dispute with Sect. 61. E. B. I shall conclude with mentioning one thing more I affirmed that by Flesh you had told us war only meant the sensitive appetite This you reply is an untruth and a meer fiction for you never said so Sir you had need have a good memory for you have writ many Books in which as containing many words there cannot want much sin and vanity And indeed had you meditated