several parts that none but a great stranger to the History of the Church can ever call in question Ans Bishop Gunning will give you no thanks for this It seems after all the anger we are much agreed I never denied Chappelâ— to a Church nor thought they must all meet at once If they all meet per vices at one Altar they are associated for presential Communion and not distant only and this is that I am for Make it but such a Church that meet at one Altar and that can know one another and are associated for such personal Communion in presence and though I could wish it neither too small nor too great it is of the Species which I plead for as of God There is certainly a Specifique difference between a Church that hath a Constitutive formal Governour who hath the whole Pastoral power and is associated for presential mutual help in faith worship and holy living and one that either hath but a half Pastor without the power of the Keyes or that is associated only for distant Communion and never see each other even for another sort of Communion Conformists hold that Bishops and Presbyters are distinct orders Therefore Churches differing in the very Order or Species of the Constitutive Governours and in the Triminus or end and the nature of the Communions are certainly of distinct Species and not only of distinct degrees in the same Species But such are our Parochial and Diocesan Churches Just such a Church as you here describe is it that I would have and yet if the Chappels also have Altars and there be more than one to the Church as long as they are under the same Bishop and Presbyters associate for Communion in presence it alters not the Species § 46. I thank you also for adding p. 28. And yet this distribution even in Creet was so uncommon in those Elder times that Epiphanius takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria and therfore it is probably supposed that there was no suâ—h thing in all the Cities in his time Ans 1. It s true of Creet which had an hundred Cities But your therefore makes me think you put Creet for Cyprus For there it was that Epiphanius was a Bishop 2. But you grant me the foundation of all my cause Let the Diocess or Parish or Church call it what you will be no bigger than that the same Bishop may performe the true Pastoral office to them in present Communion and not only by writs and delegates rule men that have no personal present Communion nor ever intend it as the end of their relation and I have my desire as to the Species of the lowest sort of Churches 1 Thes 5. 12. 13. Know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you But such are not those whom we never saw nor heard and never laboured among or admonished the twentieth or fortieth or hundredth Congregation in their Diocess and whom the people cannot know Heb. 13. 7. Remember then which have rule over you who have spoken to you the word of God whose faith follow considering the end of their conversation 17. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your Souls as those that must give account But such are not they that the people never heard the word of God from nor knew their conversation nor the men And Bishop Taylor saith No man can give account of those that he knoweth not that is Pastors account Make Parishes true Churches and restore them Church discipline and we are satisfied § 47. Serm. p. 29. If we look over the ancient Cannons of the Church we shall find two things very plain in them 1. That the notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocess or such a number of Christians as were under the inspection of a Bishop Ans 1. Very true and the Bishop was their ordinary Preacher and only pronounced the blessing c. Therefore till the Species was altered it was like a School whose Schollars lived in City and Country but were under a Bishop that Governed them personally in presence But after they were like many score or hundred Schools that had Teaching Ushers and one absent Governour to the most To Govern as a Schoolmaster in presence specifically differs from Governing as Princes or visitors by Laws or extraordinary inspection 2. I pray you forget not that by this measure if you hold to it you unchurch all our Parish Churches Every Church then had a Bishop no Parish now hath a Bishop proper to it self or at least not many Therefore no Parish by this rule is a Church Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata You make no Church below a Diocess § 48. Serm. 2. That those Presbyters who rejected the authority of their Bishop or affected Seperate meetings where no fault could be found with the Doctrine of a Cburch were condemned of Schism Ans Good still They were not to set up altare contra altare but joyn with the Bishop in Governing the same Church in present Communion at least per vices But if a Bishop than had put down a hundred or a thousand Bishops and Churches about him and said you shall be all but one Church in another sort of Communion and I will be your only Bishop Christians then would have abhorred him Now we have hundreds of Altars locally separated from the Bishop 2. But yet if then the Doctrine of faith had been never so sound Christians would have separated 1. From unlawful worship specially Idolatry 2. And from wicked Bishops as the forementioned Epistle of Cyprian and the Carthage Council sheweth § 49. You Confess Martin and Theognostus separation from the Synods and Communion of the neighbour Bishops And if it were not lawful for neighbours to communicate with them I shall believe as Cyprian that the same reason would at least warrant the people to forsake them till you shew reason to the contrary And you confess the Joannites separation and only say that after they returned It s true But did they do well or ill before they returned not till gentleness and honouring Chrysostome reduced them and though Cyril Alex. called them Schismaticks and said it was fitter the Church Canons should be kept than such refractory Nonconformists gratified by restoring the honour of their ejected Pastor yet Atticus had more wit and honesty then to follow his Council or be moved by his threatning Our case hath ten times more to be said for it than the Joannites had who were not cast out but departed nor had any Impositions forced on them which they took to be many hainous sins Had you been impartial you had easily seen this But as Cyril and others accusation of the Joannites as separatists and schismaticks did not finally attain his ends against the Joannites no more shall yours against the more excusable In an Ale-house or Crowd of the debauched or ignorant
Richard Baxters ANSWER TO Dr STILLINGFLEET's CHARGE of SEPARATION Containing I. Some Queries necessary for the understanding of his Accusation II. A Reply to his Letter which denyeth a Solution III. An Answer to his Printed Sermon Humbly tendred I. To Himself II. To the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen III. To the Readers of his Accusation the Forum where we are Accused Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Rom. 14. 1 17 18. Him that is weak in the Faith receive but not to doubtful Disputations For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Phil. 3. 16. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things 15. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons at the Three Cocks at the West-end of S. Paul's and Thomas Simmons at the Prince's Arms in Ludgate-street MDCLXXX THE PREFACE Readers 1. IF you would be truly informed of the Case of the Nonconformists and the meaning of this Defence you must know 1. That the meer Nonconformists of this age take not up their Judgment in trust from any party of men and therefore take not themselves obliged to be for or against any thing because men were so that were called Nonconformist sheretofore As the Scripture is their Rule and objective Religion so they reverence the judgment of the Primitive Church above the judgment of any party And indeed are so far against Sects and Parties as such as that their judgment is that the Church will never be well restored to desireable Concord till our Vnion be Catholick upon the terms that Christ appointed and which all good Christians have agreed in and may agree in 2. That what the meer Nonconformists of this age desired for Concord and Reformation as to the old Liturgy and Conformity is best known by their common Proposals 1660 all the Ministers of London being by Mr. Calamy Mr. Ash and Dr. Reynolds invited to Sion-Colledg freely to give their judgments who offered nothing for Church-Government but Bishop Usher's Primitive form and nothing for Worship but the Reforming of the Liturgy and the free use of additional formes Their exceptions against passages in the Liturgy being not thought absolutely necessary to Communion And it must be remembred that they offered then 1. A Defence of those Exceptions 2. A Reformed Liturgy or Additions 3. A Petition for Peace and preventing Schism to the Bishops which they never answered to this day that we know of 3. You must know that the Change of the Liturgy on pretense of easing us and the Act of Vniformity have made Conformity now quite another thing than it was before and to us far more intollerable I am past doubt that Ri. Hooker Bishop Bilson Bi Usher and such others were they now alive would be Nonconformists yea I can prove it as well as I can prove that they were honest men and would hold to what they wrote 4. You must know that we had never leave to give our Reasons against the New Conformity nor allowed to be once heard speak for our selves before about two thousand Ministers were silenced when our Judicatures will hear a single Malefactor We have been silent about eighteen years while men have call'd to us What is it that you would have while they would not give us leave to tell them 5. And when the Press was somewhat open they spread it abroad that our silence now plainly shewed that we had nothing to say but kept up a Schism against our own Consciences 6. At last though my Friends had long told me that our Lives must be our best Defence and that our Accusers would but be inflamed by an Apology and could not endure to hear our Reasons I durst forbear no longer but yet ventured no farther than to write a bare Narrative of the Matter of our Nonconformity lest arguing should exasperate But that very naming of the things which we deny hath much displeased them that differ from us supposing that it implyeth an accusation of them which I renounced 7. The Reader then that will understand our Case must not look to find it here but be at the labour to read what is already written of it which we must not repeat as oft as any will write against us that is 1. In the said unanswered writings of 1661. 2. In the Kings eclaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs for which the London Ministers subscribed and printed a Thanksgiving 3. In my first Plea for Peace describing our Nonconformity 4. In the efence of it against Mr. Cheyny's Answer 5. In my second Plea for Peace describing our Judgment of Government and obedience and what our Nonconformity is not and divers other points 6. In my True and only way of Universal Concord on which the Churches must agree if ever 7. In my Moral Prognostication 8. In my Abridgment of Church-History of Bishops and Councils shewing what hath divided the Churches heretofore 8. You must know that I write not to justifie every man that is called a Nonconformist but to give an Answer to the publick Accusation of my self and a Reason of the Preaching of the meer Nonconformists 9. But that the fuller Justification of our Preaching is intended in another Treatise called Their Apology or Third Plea for Peace II. And as to the prosecution of the debate with this Reverend Doctor it is not likely that I shall trouble him with any Rejoinder if he Reply unless he will take another course and first explain our terms and state the question to be disputed Much less shall I contend with any substitute who shall avoid the way of Love and Reason which from the Doctor I may expect There is one sort of Disputants that are too strong for me Those that have a better Cause Truth will overcome Light will appear through narrow cranies Of these I shall be glad to be overcome I protest that to my knowledg I never managed a Dispute in which I trusted not to the Goodness of my Cause more than to wit or words or humane advantage But there are above twenty sorts of other Disputants too hard for me to overcome 1. Those that will Dispute before they agree of the sense of their terms or state the question and then quarrel for not being understood 2. Those that will not read or answer our fullest Defence already written but look I should still begin anew 3. Vniversallists that can prove me to be an Ass because I am an Animal 4. Equivocaters that can prove me a Separatist because I sit not at their feet or read not in their Book or with their Spectacles 5. A Pope that taketh it for a
and command in what words only every Pastor shall publickly pray to God and what Books and words of men he shall profess assent and consent to and what dedicating symbols of Christianity he shall use as engaging in the Christian Covenant and to command Ceremonies and Modes for dissent wherein he shall deny Baptism and Church-Communion to all dissenters though the things be taken to be indifferent by the Magistrate and great sins by the dissenters 3. And that all that obey not in all these but preach when forbidden or use other accidents or modes and choose other Pastors to â—e their Guides are Separatists and sin againg God II. On these grounds you judg me and such others sinful Separatists III. You justifie the executing of the Laws upon us and would have us silenced and such dissenters not endured It is our Conformity or our ceasing to preach which you plead for as the Cure § 6. I. As to your supposed ground 1. You know it 's like that in my first plea for peace I largely confuted it And could you think that without any reply your bare saying over the thing confuted could be any satisfaction to one of any sense or conscience 2. You cannot but know that the judgment and practice of the Uniyersal Church in East and West hath been against you not only for the first 300 years but for many hundred after Father Paul Sarpi after cited in his History of Church Revenues truly testifieth it I have proved it by many Canons and Histories in my Church History that he was to be taken as no Bishop that was chosen by Magistrates Prelates or any without the Clergies election and the Peoples election or consent Christians then took not this to be any part of the Princes trust but only to countenance the things that furthered Learning and Godliness and encourage the Clergy and People to choose the best and to protect and encourage and govern them by the sword when they were chosen This being past doubt were the Universal Church Separatists Is our Concent with the Universal Church or your singularity from it liker to Schism or Separation 3. I know that there are inconveniences in the Peoples consenting power and so there are in all humane affairs but not to be cured by pernicious mischiefs You will not tell me because you cannot tell me how we shall know what Magistrates they be that have this trust Whether Heathens Infidels Mahometans Socinians Arians Macedonians Eutkchians Monothelites Image-worshipers Papists Anabaptists or who and who must judge of their qualifications Yea were we sure that the Prince were Orthodox If he were but wicked debauched an enemy to serious practical piety as all wicked men naturally are inclined to be will not all such choose Bishops and Pastors like themselves what more natural than to propagate our like And will not wicked Bishops make wicked Priests And you know the Patron hath the choice with us and it 's a slender qualification which the Bishop hath power to require without a quare impedit An Atheist a Fornicator a drunkard a hater of holiness hath nevertheless the choice of a Priest for the Parish to whom all the People must entrust their Souls What a sad Case were the Christian World in if we may lawfully have no other Pastors than Gentlemen and Princes choose for us When Christ tells us how hard it is for the Rich to enter into the Kingdom of Heaven and how few of the Noble are called and in uno annulo c. is become a Proverb What a Case were Hungary Poland France Germany and the Greek Churches in if this were true 4. Personal power in man is the first Family power is the next City and Kingdom power supposeth these and cannot destroy them Hence subjects that are not meer slaves stand up to plead for their Personal and Domestick property liberty and power If my Money and Limbs and Life be not at the Patrons or the Princes will much less my Soul He is trusted with my Estate and Life but I am first and more trusted with them He may keep out ill Physitians from the Land and encourage the good but he hath no power to tie me to an ill Physitian nor to an ill Diet nor to ill Servants c. The choice of these belongeth to my self Much less can he on pretence of Parish-order tie me to an ignorant drunken Malignant or an unexperienced sapless Teacher that is to my Soul as a silly Emperick to my health Scripture and the Worlds experience tell how much God mâ—rrally giveth his light and grace according to the aptitude of means Habitus infusi se habent ad modum acquisitorum is common in the Schools Twenty sinners are usually sooner brought to repentance under skilful fit Teachers than under one unskilful or ungodly men And no man hath power from God to damn my Soul or forbid me the needful means of my salvation No man is so much concerned as my self what becometh of me for ever and I will not believe that the Patron loveth me and all the Parish better than we love our selves England hath been blest with better Rulers than other Lands But one Rule must in this be held to by all the Churches And if you would even here appeal to experience I will not here stay to tell you the names of 8 or 9 or 10 ignorant Readers most Drunkards some rarely half never preaching that I was bred under nor what a stock of such our Country had and how very thin pious tolerable preachers were nor what worthy men Aldermanbury Black-fryers the Inns-of-Courts and most places have had where the people chose But reason signifieth little with most who are on his side that talketh to them with the best advantage I insist on this You go against all the ancient Farthers and Churches for many hundred Years and are so far a Separatist from more than one Parish-Priest II. And therefore your Accusation of us thus grounded is Shismatical and unjust and recoileth on your self who instead of Gods Rule that all should walk by accuse them that walk not by your novel crooked Rules which may make as many Modish Religions as there are Princes III. And your desire of our silencing and not being tolerated I will only here lament and after speak to IV. And as your Cure by our Conformity is impossible so that by silencing will be none but increase the disease § 7. Is it not a very uncharitable thing of you that when it 's I whom you have called to account you flatly deny or shun to give me an Answer to my Case and to the Case of all others that preach only in Parishes where few of the People can hear in the Church Why ask you To what purpose should you resolve those Queries I Answer to shew me whether my preaching be my Sin or Duty And whether you justly or unjustly accused me and all such others was it not to this purpose
would be so bad in us but also to accuse us so publickly to Magistrates for not forbearing to preach the Gospel when we were solemnly devoted to it and pleading against the toleration of it when Non-toleration must be by Imprisonment Banishment or Death or such Disablement against such as believe they are bound to preach while they are able § 5. Yet you can tell that they are ill Men that reported you stir up Magistrates to Persecution If that much will prove it it 's like they will be emboldened to call you an ill Man too for such faults are so common that we may say as Seneca Quid ulcus leviter tangam omnes mali sumus Indeed they do not well that use that word Persecution when your words are but against Toleration and the Church of England ' s endeavour after Vniformity which are publickly known § 6. And no wonder if they are ill Men when you are but finding out a certain Foundation for a lasting Vnion which is impossibâ—e to be attained till Men are convinced of the evil and danger of the present Separation c. That is you are but proving our Union impossible for I have elsewhere proved that the Conviction which you speak of is morally impossible to become the terms of a common Union It is impossible that we should all be convinced that none of the Particulars imposed are sinful which I have named in my first Plea And secondly 't is as impossible that we should all be convinced that it is any more lawful for us to forsake our Ministry to which we were vowed in our Ordination than to break our Oath of Allegiance and deny our Duty to the King So that you do no worse than for Union to prove our Union impossible and who is it that makes it so § 7. And this Impossibility you infer from this Principle That it is lawful to separate on a pretence of greater Purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship Answ 1. Was there not this Agreement in the case of Cyprian and the Council who persuaded the People to separate from Martial and Basilides And is not Union possible with such as Cyprian and the Carthage Bishops 2. We that are accused by you do not say that we differ not from you in Doctrine absolutely viz. in the Doctrine about Diocesan Church-Forms or their imposing Power we never denied this difference But we say in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the Form of Government and imposed Abuses we agree And suppose that we agreed in such Doctrine and Worship with a Church that yet held only that the Pope is jure divino the Constitutive Vicarious Head of the Vniversal Church and would take none that confess it not for Christians were it a Sin to separate from that Church 3. Suppose that Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and you and make themselves our Pastors against our wills is it unlawful to separate from them though they agree with us in Doctrine and Worship And if the Churches and Councils have been in the right which for 700 yea 1000 years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent I need not tell you how far this will reach 4. What if a Church that you agree with in Doctrine and Worship will not receive you unless you will deliberately profess or subscribe an Untruth or covenant against some Duty or commit a known Sin is it intolerable for you rather to separate from them than to sin And must we have no Union till we can in all things think as you do § 8. I think you need not expect the Censures of the chief makers of our Divisions And as to the inferiour Sectaries if you are a Sacrifice it will be an unbloody one You well admonish us in the end not to complain too much when we are silenc'd impoverished and imprisoned The counsel is good But for the Dean of Pauls c. that is deservedly loved and honoured by us all whom you thus deal with and by those great Men whose esteem he deservedly more valueth while he liveth in this Plenty and Honour to call himself a Sacrifice if a few poor Men say He wrongeth them when he pleadeth against the Magistrates enduring them or against their Judgment that think they should be endured Doth not this seem to another greater tendency than for me only to say de facto I was laid in the Common Gaol and fain to make away my Goods and Library to save them from Distress But so much to your Epistle The Sermon followeth § 9. And what could a Man have desired more to end the main differences among us than the serious consideration of your Text in its very plain import and drift 1. That the Text speaketh for Unity and Concord is past question 2. And that it speaketh both to the Pastors and the Flocks 3. And that it speaketh to all Christians though of various degrees of Attainment And therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences 4. All the doubt is what is meant by the same Canon or Rule And there are these several Expositions pleaded for 1. That by the same Rule is meant only the General Concord idem velle nolle to agree and live in Peace and to mind the same things 2. That by the same Rule is meant the Essentials of Christianity received by all Christians which they should have concordantly practised notwithstanding other differences 3. That by the same Rule is meant the Doctrine which the Apostles had concordantly delivered to all the Churches 4. That it was the Churches Creed which is supposed then to be in use as the Symbol of Christians 5. That it is the Canonical Scriptures in the times that they were written and delivered to the Churches 6. That it is the Example of S. Paul before described or the matter of itâ— that is to hold fast what he had attained and press forwards towards the heavenly perfection by desire hope diligence and patience 7. Some take the one Rule to be the end as it is to be attained by the means that is the common good of the Church and furtherance of the Gospel and our Salvation Let all be done to edification 8. Some say that it is the great Duty of Love which is made the Rule for our undetermined actions or that the fundamental duties are made a Canon to the Superstructures as it seemeth to be meant Gal. 6. 15 16. And by Christ Go learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice To tell you which and how many of these I take to be meant in the Text and why is none of the work which you call me to but to tell you that which-ever of these it is or if all these we fully consent All these Canons we must all walk by 9. But some say
one Church when it is upon unwarrantable cause or reasons If one Church unjustly renounce Communion with another whole Church as no true Church or as Heretical I think that it is done by a whole Church against a whole Church makes it worse But perhaps you mean that for two National Churches to have two Kings is not unlawful No doubt of that But to what purpose is it Or is it that two National Churches may have different Accidents of Worship or Discipline And so may two Diocesan or Parish-Churches in our Nation if the King please at least § 15. You add Which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to govern and reform themselves Ans Have not all Diocesan Churches power to govern and reform themselves Government is of various species Only the King or summa Potestas Civilis hath Power to govern and reform by his Species of Government But every Bishop may govern and reform his Church as a Bishop as every Master may his Family as a Master and every Man himself as a Man It 's a strange Man Family or Church that hath not power to govern and reform it self though not Regal Power Though Kings have Power they have not God's Power and all Power that is Humane is not Regal § 16. Serm. By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their Right of Government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common Ties and Rules of Order and Government Ans 1. And had not those as good right that were not under the Roman Empire as Abasia c. 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exercise their great diversity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worship without right Had not they a right to govern and reform themselves variously as they did 3. Christian Societies are of divers species Do you mean Christian Civil Societies Kingdoms free Cities c. or Churches Or do you take a Christian Kingdom and a Christian Church for the same as the Erastians do If so I suppose half the Conformists will be against you as well as I. At least you must confess that if de nomine a Christian Kingdom quasi tale may be called a Church it is equivocally and that there is a sort of Christian Churches which are of another Constitution Far were the Christian Bishops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that a Church in the common sence was not constituted of another sort of Regent part that had the Power of the Keyes Two species of Governours make two species of the Societies if they are not subordinate but prime constitutive Parts But the Prince and the Pastor are two species well opened among many by Bishop Bilson of Subjection And verily if you Conformists be divided among your selves about the very Constitutive Rector of a Christian Church you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you 4. And what be the common Tyes and Rules of Order which you mean Are these notifying Terms for a Definition 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents 2. There are Rules made by Contract such as Grotius thinks Canons are and Rules made by Governours which are binding Commands or Laws 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governours to be enforced by the Sword and Rules made only by Ecclesiastical Pastors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys Do you mean all these Or which of them 1. All Christian Churches are tied by the common Divine Rule and is not consent to that enough to make a Church 2. Churches of various Nations may be under one Humane Rule of Agreement or Contract 3. The same Princes may give divers Rules about Accidents to the Churches of one Kingdom and also the same Rule for some Accidents to divers Churches under them who differ in other great things And doth agreement in those Accidents do more to make them Oâ— Church than their difference in Integrals to make them many 4. Princes may do as the Roman Emperours long did leave the Bishops in Councils to make their own Rules by consent and make no common Imperial Rule for them Are they ever the less One Church 5. The Roman Empire and Councils both left the several Bishops to make Rules for Liturgies and other Accidents for their several Churches Were they therefore the less one National Church So that I am no more acquainted by your Words what you mean by a whole Church than if you had said nothing There is a whole Diocesâ—â— Church and a whole Parish Church as well as a whole National Church And what the Power is and what the Rule of Order must be whether the Laws of Princes or Prelates and whether about Essential or Integrals or Accidents and what Accidents whether all or many or few and which that must make a Church to be One whole Church you never tell us An Infidel Prince or a Heretick Prince may give the same Rule of Order to his Christian Subjects in a whole Kingdom Is he therefore the constitutive Church-Head Or will you say as your Mr. Rich. Hooker doth That if he be the Head of a Christian Church it is necessary that he be a Christian To tell us of Common Ties and Rules of Order and never tell us what those Ties and Rules are may serve your Ends but not my Edification § 17. But I remember your Irenicum learnedly maintaineth that God hath instituted no one Form of Church-Government as necessary And if so then not a National Church-Form And is it not a whole Church if it be without a Form which not God but Man is the Author of Then God made or instituted no such thing as a whole Church Then it is a humane Creature Then why may not Man make yet more Forms and multiply and make and unmake as he seeth cause and several Countries have several Forms And forma dat nomen esse And if God made not any whole Church we should be acquainted who they be that were not a Church that had Power to make the first Church-Form and who hath the Power ever since and how it is proved and how it cometh to be any great matter to separate from a Church-Form which God never made and whether humane Church-Forms be not essential and constitutive Causes of the Churches and whether every commanded Oath Subscription Declaration Office or Ceremony be an essential part of this Church-Form And there be as many Church-Forms and Species as there be Orders Liturgies and Ceremonies And all these Differences in the same Kingdom constitute so many Schisms and Separations § 18. Do you take all the Christians in the Turkish Empire to be one National Church or not If not then one Head
or Humane Law is not necessary to the being or Government of a Church nor is it necessary that it be National And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themselves though they be not a National Church Why did Paul write to Corinth as Clemens also did and to the Galatians c. and John to Ephesus and the other six Rev. 2 3. to reform themselves if they had not Power to do it But if all the Christians under the Turk be one National Church then it is either because they have one Civil Head or one Ecclesiastical Head Not the latter for they have none such though the Bishops of Constantinople have some Primacy by their old Canons and Customs Not the former for an Infidel cannot be an essential part of a Christian Church as a constitutive Head is § 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Constantine were true Churches of Christ's Institution and they had power to govern and reform themselves and yet they had no humane Constitutive Head Regal or Sacerdotal though they had a Civil Heathen Governour which was an extrinsick accidental Head It is so contrary to all Sence and Religion that either a Man as a Man or a Family or a Church as such should have no power to govern and reform it self that I must needs judg that while you speak confusedly you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power which yet is totâ specie distinct from that which is properly Ecclesiastical § 20. Serm. p. 17. And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Answ 1. And is the Controversy de nomine Whether they might be called the Lydian Church when we expected a satisfactory explication de re No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called I have told you of divers Sences in which we are called a Church National first Plea pag. 251 c. Either a Christian Kingdom or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King as associated by agreement may be called a National Church 2. What if they be united in one Kingdom of a Heathen Mahometan or Arrian King and governed by his Regal Authority under the same Rules which he sets them Is this it that you mean in your Description A King as such is not an Ecclesiastick Person and therefore is not an essential part of a Church unless as it is equivocally so called And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean or the Clergies Canons or God's Laws The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws and also are under one Patriarch and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastick Authority and Laws of another Species If you confound these two Species or tell us not which you mean in your Definition it tendeth not to Edification 3. And what if they be under divers Kings as the Bulgarians and Greeks were and yet ruled by one Ecclesiastick Authority and Law why may not they also be called One Church as the Moscovites are now called part of the Greek Church 4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire as the African and other Countries were But what is all this de nomine to the Controversy All grant that the Civil Power must be obeyed in their place and the Church-power in theirs 5. But here you grant that they are several Churches before their Union in one Kingdom And I suppose they were Churches 1. of another species than the National described by you 2. and were of Divine Institution 3. and continue so after their Union in one Kingdom 4. and have power to govern and reform themselves still though not Regal power § 21. Serm. Just as several Families united make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent power but it would make strange confusion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Answ And are they not several Families still and have they not still a distinct Family-power to govern and reform themselves tho not a Regal Power Doth making a City or Kingdom dissolve Families You cannot mean it What mean you then by reducing these Kingdoms back to Families when they are Families still Had you said that dissolving Kingdoms or Cities and reducing them to be only Families is confusion it 's undeniable But still as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power so particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Institution gave them And this is that we desire § 22. Serm. Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship Ans 1. All Christians are under the same Divine Laws and Rules 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Christians but their Civil Laws for the common Peace And some make various Laws for various sorts of Christians under them § 23. Serm. For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Ans 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a Church is 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species There must be more The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms and so is a Christian Kingdom as such and so is a Provincial Church and a Diocesan Church and a particular Parochial Church yet all these are not of the same species for they have different terminos in specie 3. This is a very defective Definition where 1. Men are made the qualified Subject when it should have been Christians 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects 3. They are said to be united in general without telling us what uniting is meant whether only by force command or consent whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture Baptism as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse as to the Visible Church 4. It is said they are united for Order and Government as if these were but the Terminus and so may those by agreement de futuro that yet have no Government whereas the Government is the constitutive Form 5. This Definition leaving out the specifick Form and Terminus maketh an Army a Navy a Ship a company of Christian Merchants or Corporation c. to be a Church For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the
Christian Religion For the Christian Religion giveth Rules to all sorts of Christian Societies These are not the usual ways of defining nor give me any true notice of your sence 6. And you make it not intelligible whether by the Rules of the Christian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond or only as a Rule to some humane Rule But though the application look this way yet your words speak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuse that are united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion If this will serve those are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order c. But is not this against those Churches that take not the Bible but Canons or other humane Laws for the bound of their Church-Vnion or their Rule If it be uniting for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which maketh a Church let us then try which Societies are so united and let that be the matter of our Dispute § 24. Serm. p. 13. And it is a great mistake to make the Notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that an adequate Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the Name of Churches to particular Congregations whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up But if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other Bond that uniteth them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church Ans 1. Did you write this as a Confutation of any body If so you should have told them who are your Adversaries I never met with one to my remembrance that saith the Church is no longer a Church than they are congregate but Mr. Cheney who writeth against my Plea for Peace And so the two first who now write against me write against one another and I must please them both When you so far differ among your selves you should bear with them that less differ from you 2. What mean you by the Notion of a Church which all Men know is an equivocal word Do you mean that a Church hath but one Notion I pray you tell us whether the Notion be the same as it is used Matth. 16. 18. 18. 17. 1 Corinth 11. 18 22. Acts 19. 32 39 40. 1 Crrinth 14. 34. Psalm 26. 5. Ephes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Acts 5. 11. Acts 20. 28. Rev. 2. 12 18. Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. 10. Acts 8. 1 3. Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. 5. 23. Doth any Man believe that it is in all these Texts taken in the same Notion or sence I am sure I need not ask this of you as to the sence of prophane Authors who use the word for any sort of Concilium coetus concio congregatio convivia as in Lucian Demosthenes Aristotle Thucidides c. 3. If you will pardon me for telling Men in Print so often that a Church is constituted not only for Communion in Worship but also in Doctrine and holy Living I will not ask you why you dissembled this nor why you would intimate the contrary to your Readers Repetition is not the least fault of my Writings and all will not prevent the mis-intimations even of such worthy Men as you Ad nauseam usque I have repeated that the Office of the Ministery standeth in a subordination to the three parts of Christ's Office Prophetical or Teaching Priestly or Worshipping Kingly or Ruling and that a particular Church is associated for the use and benefit of all three conjunctly Were you not willing to take notice of this or not willing that others should take notice of it 4. How many Writings of ours have told the World that we appropriate not the Notion of a Church to a particular Congregation Do not my Books which you cite copiously express the contrary Do we not over and over tell Men that the word Church must be considered as equivocal generical and specifical Do we take the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed for a particular Congregation Worthy Sir this is unworthy dealing whether it be by ignorance negligence rashness or wilfulness We distinguish between Churches of God's Institution and of Man's Invention And of the first sort what Independent is there that holdeth not an Vniversal Church at least besides particular Congregations And of Man's making who can number the sorts that are and may be made 5. Did you ever know Man save such Conformists as he that answered my Plea whether Greek Papist Episcopal Presbyterian Independent or Anabaptist who denieth a Church Bond that uniteth them when the Congregation is dismiss'd All confess that the Union of the pars regens and pars subdita for Church-ends doth make it a Church And who doth not distinguish between the Constitution and Administration the Status and the Exercitium 6. How then could you say If this be true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up What shew is there of such a consequence What if we held that the Church were so called barely in relation to Publick Worship doth it follow that this Relation ceaseth as soon as the several Acts of Worship cease Their mutual consent and the union of the VVorshippers Priest and People associated for that use may continue when the Act of VVorship is intermitted May it not continue a School when the Boys go home or play May it not be a Parliament when the House is risen tho it be only for the work of assembled Men that they are related and denominated 7. But Sir do you not confess even in your Iroenicon where you maintain that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine command 1. That God hath commanded that there be Assemblies ordinarily used for his VVorship 2dly And that Pastors are to be the Guides and chief Managers of this VVorship 3dly And that they should be also their Teachers 4thly And that they govern them by their Keys And if all this be true then such Assemblies are of Divine Institution not such as are associated only for VVorship but for Doctrine Worship and holy Living under the Teaching and Conduct of their Pastors If you deny that such Churches as we call Particular are of Divine Institution we have often proved it though few Christians deny it or need any proof And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite that I must suppose you know it though you seem to dissemble it that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be not the whole Church meeting at one time and place but personal presential Communion in Doctrine VVorship and Holy Conversation as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only Your Parish is associated for such
no mention of lawful in your Definitions 4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane Laws and Rules yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean for else 1. I am of the same National Church that you are yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you and such as you I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do at least 3. But then it can be but sincere not perfect Obedience to God's Laws and Rules which must prove one to be of this Church or else no Man is of it And then you must shew us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink or a Ceremony or Liturgick Form or Diocesan order do cut one off from that Church If yea than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it which we fear But supposing that you mean Humane Laws 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church If Humane Laws were necessary ad bene esse the Christians that I have read and converst with think that they are not necessary to the Being of a Church in sensu famosiore why then should they be in the Definition and only they 6. But the difficulty recurreth as to Humane Laws which of them are necessary to the Being of the Church For your Definition distinguished not The King hath great and excellent Laws which we all conform to Doth not our Conformity to these seem to prove us of the National Church though we conform not to your Formalities and Oaths and Ceremonies Imperfect Obedience serveth to continue men Subjects to the King It is not every Drunkeness or Oath or Fornication much less the miss of a Complement or Ceremony that makes a Man a Rebel or an Outlaw Why then should the refusal of a Prelates Subscription or Formality unchurch a sound and honest Christian 7. And if the humane Laws and Rules which you mention what ever you mean by them be subordinate to God's Laws and so be honest good and obligatory why should they cut off those from the Church which Christ's Laws cut not off yea which Christ receiveth and commandeth us to receive Receive him for God receiveth him and receive him as Christ receiveth us notwithstanding our Infirmities were good reasonings in St. Paul's Judgment which I prefer before any Bishops that I know 8. And a Man of less Acquaintance or Wit than you cannot be ignorant what abundance of Differences there are among your selves I have named you no small number in my â—d Plea some of you are hot against that which is called Arminianism and some hot for it some are for Bishops and Presbyters being of one Order and some of divers all are not of the mind of the Bishop of Hereford that wrote Naked Truth some even Bishops think that the damnatory part of Athanasius's Creed is not approved by Conformity others think that it is all to be approved A multitude such differences there are among your selves And why should not this as much unchurch some of you if it be being under the same Laws that maketh you one Church as the forbearing of a Declaration of Assent and Consent or of a Surplice c. 9. Especially tell us whether the Conformist's difference about the Constitutive Regent Part of the Church of England some being for one species and some for another do not plainly make them to be of two distinct Churches of England and further different from each other than we are from any part We justly say the Papists who are for two species of Soveraigns some for the Pope and some â—â—r a general Council are plainly of two Churches for the regent part is essential And I am sure that one part of the most Eminent Disputers for the Church of England and Conformity say that the King is the Extraneous Civil Governour but the Bishops are the Constitutive Essential Internal Governours of the Church as a Church and that if the Bishops command the use of one Translation Version Metre Liturgie and the King another we are to obey the Bishops and not the King And that the efficient cause of a National Church is the Bishops Agreement among themselves to associate into such a Church And others say that it is the King and his Laws that are the efficient of such a Church and are to be obeyed in matter of the Circumstances of Worship c. before the Bishops Can you prove that this difference between the Conformists about the very Constitutive Regent Power is not greater than Mens differences about a Ceremony or Form and doth not more to make them to be of two Churches 10. If all this confused stir be but about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of Divine Command And if you know it not or dissemble it after I have said so much of it in the first Plea and elsewhere I cannot help that viz. if you will talk publickly against what you know or know not when told because you will not know But I have there largly told you what the Power of Princes about Church matters is which if you will not read I will not repeat 11. Your Words Laws and Rules would induce one to think that you joyned the Kings Laws and the Bishop's Canons together in your meaning as the bond of Uâ—ity If so is it two sorts of Governours by the Swoâ—d and by the Word Magistrates and Pastors which you take for the constitutive regent parts of the Church If so then either in Cooâ—dination and Coalâ—tion or in Subordination The first cannot be that the two Species in Coalition should make one Head unless both were in the Kings as Persona Mixta both Lay and Clergie as some affirm him to be like Melchizâ—deck But this both King and Clergie disown Nor can the second be because a subordinate Power is not essential to the whole body politick but only the supreme And the Magistracy Ministry are coordinate Species both depending immediately on God and Subordinate Mutually only Secundum quid Nor is the Legislative Power in England any other than one which is in the King and Parliament conjunct The Bishops Canons are not Laws Ejusdem Speciei till the King and Parliament make them such If this be your Judgment there are I think but few Conformists of your mind 12. I must Conjecture therefore by your words That the Laws and Rules which you define the Church by are the Laws of the King and Parliament and that it is the Civil Christian Sovereign that you take for the Constitutive Head of that National Church which you plead for or else I know not what to Conjecture And if this be your Meaning I add to what is said 1. Erastians have hitherto been distasted by the Bishops and I
doubt they will by this take you for somewhat worse 2. What doth your National Church differ from a Christian Kingdom which we deny not 3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church besides that which is Constituted by the Christian Magistrate as Head 1. All the Christian World as far as I can learn by History no considerable part excepted have been in all Ages and to this Day are of another mind And who then is the great Nonconformist and Separatist You or I if this be your mind 2. The Magistracy and Pastoral Office are of different Species Therefore the Churches Constituted by their Regency are of different Species 3. Constantines words have hitherto been commonly received That He and so Christian Kings was Bishop without the Church and the proper Bishop within that is That he was the Governour of the Church by the Sword as the King is of all Scholars Physitians Families c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys as the King is not a School-Master Physitian or the formal Specifying Governour of School Colledge Family as such Bishop Bilson of Subjection most clearly openeth the difference and I think Christians commonly agree to it between the Office of Governing by the Sword and by the Word even about the Church it self 4. Christ settled immediately the Pastoral Office and did not leave it to Princes to make it And He settled Churches under the Pastors when there were no Christian Princes And when the Emperours became Christians they never took themselves to be the intrinsick Constitutive Rectors of the Churches but Accidental Heads as is aforesaid And all the Councils and their Canons fully shew that the Bishops were still of this mind And our greatest Defenders of the Power of Princes Bilson Andrews Buckâ—ridge Spalatensis c. were of the same mind and ascribe to them no more 5. Else Heathen and Infidel Princes might be Essential to the Church in the Gospel-Notion For they are the Governours of it by the Sword and may possibly by the Counsel of Christians make them as good Laws as many Christian Princes do Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws But I Labour in vain in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species for I suppose you cannot deny it and if you do few others will I suppose it is only the National Form which you take to be Constituted by a Lay-Head But few Christians will deny That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church is of Divine Institution and that Men have not power to destroy that Form or change the Office there Instituted by the Holy Ghost Though the Forms of Assâ—ciated Churches Diocesan Metropolitan Provincial Patriarchal are judged by very many to be of Humane Invention And what Man may make Man on good Reason may unmake or alter But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned I shall Grant you that a National Church is also of Divine Command if you mean but a Christian Kingdom But when one Form is Denominated from the Pastoral Office related to the Flock and the other from the Magistrates Office What hath a Man that can understand the State of the Controversy to do here but to shew what is the Pastoral Office towards the Church and what is the Magistrates For sure they are not the same And yet because that it is the Pastoral Form which the word Church denoteth in the strict and usual Christian Sense Our Sovereignes in England to avoid the Papists Exceptions have forsaken the Title of Head of the Church lest they should seem to claim a Constitutive Headship of a Church strictly taken and use only the Term Governour Even as Christ is said by St. Paul Eph. 1. to be Head over all things To the Church Over and To much differ And I yet see not why on the same Reason that we call a Christian Kingdom or Republick a National Church we may not 〈◊〉 call Loâ—don York c. a City-Church as Headed by the Mayor as the Christian Magistrate and so talk of Provincial Consular and Proconsular Churches Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical Churches and make all the Controversies which Church-Form is best as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is best And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations which I think yet most of them disclaim do this way quite exceed them in Popularity and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches even National including the particulars For I suppose they will not say that Democratical Civil Government is unlawful And whereas Cyprian saith Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia you will say Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is there is the Church But I trow the Bishop of London believeth that there is another sort of London-Church-Form besides my Lord Mayors Relation to them But what abundance of Church-Forms Supream and Subordinate may diversity of Magistracy make § 29. Sermon p. 19. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion i. e. those which are necessary for Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Answ 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to speak of I suppose it is not for want of Charity nor Concern that you intend it not and therefore suppose that somebody else will do it at last I have heard of some above your order that could better spare the Nonconforming Ministers than the People and said plainly that they increased the Impositions because they could do better without us than with us And some have said If this will not cast them out more shall do it I take it for granted that this pretermitted part of your Work is indeed the All that you have to do in the Works of Accusing and Afflicting the Nonconformists and till this be done the rest of your Accusations will confute themselves and I doubt not but it will be attempted and if it be truly and satisfactory I will give you thanks 2. Your Term of Lay-Communion remembreth me that if as you seem you Essentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler and his Laws viz. the King and the Laws made by him for Religious Government the People that you accuse are no Separatists though they Separate from the Diocesanes because they hold this Lay-Communion that is though they are not perfectly Obedient they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour and so Members of the Kingdom which is the National-Church 3. And as to your Lay-Communion here spoken of So far as it is Lawful where you have Preach'd or Written for it once I think I have done it many times I shall be far from Contradicting you in that § 30. Sermon p. 20. I will not say there
go to seek him in another Parish where he dwells when ever we need a Pastor's Councel were he at Leisure and willing he could not have time to speak to one of an Hundred that might at once wait to speak with him So that we have none of this necessary Pastoral Help when we greatly need it Yea not the Sixth or Tenth Part of the Parish can come to Hear him in the Church And when We that most desire it get in it troubleth us to think that we thereby keep out those that least desire it but most need it who knowing the Difficulty of getting Room do stay at Home and never seek it So that Five Parts of Six of our Neighbours use not to go to any Church at all no more than Infidels And if in pity we perswade them to go to any Nonconformist's Meeting they say the Clergy will Damn them as Schismaticks The Question now is Whether Ten Thousand or Twenty Thousand in a Parish are bound to live without all Private Pastoral Help and Councel yea and to forbear all Publick Worshipping of God and Hearing of his Word And if they seek Relief of Nonconforming Ministers Publickly and Privately Whether it be Sinful Separation If Men can spare the Ministry Why are they Maintained If they are needful for the Safety of Mens Souls Must so many Thousands hazard their Souls for want of needful Help lest they be called Separatists If the Dean of St. Pauls be called the Parson of the Parish and Preach to others that can Hear him Will that serve the Needs of all the rest XX. In Moscovie where a Christian Prince and the Laws forbid all Preaching and Publick Worship save the Reading of Homilies and Liturgies Is it Separation and Sinful Schism to Disobey this and otherwise to Preach and Worship God XXI Is it Schism in France and such other Countries for the Protestants to Meet to Preach and Worship God against the Wills of the King and Bishops It 's true that great Sin is necessarily thus avoided by them which are not Imposed upon us But if it prove that any Sin is made necessary to Communion the Degree will not much vary the Case as to the Point of Separation XXII In divers Countries the Prince is of one Religion or Mode of Religion and the Bishops of another The Question is Who are the Schismaticks the People that in their Assemblies and Mode of Worship do â—ollow the Prince or they that follow the Bishops Some great Writers for Conformity tell me That if the King Command one Liturgy Translation Version Ceremony c. and the Bishop another I must obey the Bishop before the King Others say I must Obey the King before the Bishop of which before Bishop Goodman of Glocester a Papist complaineth of the King that would not consent that Clergy-Men should be Chancellours And I speak with no Bishop that disowneth not Lay-Chancellours Use of the Keys The Helvetian Magistrates are Erastians against the Clergies Power of Excommunication Many of the Pastors are of the Contrary Judgment The Duke of Brandenburgh is a Calvinist His Bishops and Clergy are Lutherans Which Party are the Schismatick XXIII Were all those Separating Schismaticks who from the Apostles Dayes did Meet Preach and Worship God against the Will and Laws of Princes sometimes of Heathen Princes and sometimes of Christians Constantine Valens Theodosius the Second Anastasius Zeno Justinian c. If so most Christian Bishops have been such Separatists I have in my First Plea and my Church-History given Instances enough XXIV Is it Schism or Sinful Separation to Disobey a Command about Religion which no Man hath true Authority to Give Authority is the Objectum Formale of Obedience and where there is no Authority there is no Disobedience in a formal Sense or privative Most Politicks say That Princes have no Authority against the Common Good All Power of Princes and Pastors is of God and is for Edification and not for Destruction God giveth no Power against Himself or his Laws nor the Souls of Men. If the King should Command me to Marry a Wife whom I know to be intolerably unmeet for me or to Feed my self and Family with Food which I find to be against our Health or to use a Physician whose Ignorance or Negligence or Untrustiness would endanger my Life I am not bound to Obey him both because it is a Matter that is without the Verge of his Governing Authority and because it is against the End of Government Regal Power destroyeth not Family-Power nor Personal Interest and Self-Government No Man hath Power to Destroy or Endanger the Souls of Men nor forbid them seeking their own Edification and Salvation I Repeat Bishop Bilson's Words p. 236. of Subjection Princes have no Right to Call or Confirm Preachers but to Receive such as be Sent of God and give them Liberty for their Preaching and Security for their Persons And if Princes Refuse so to do God's Labourers must go forward with that which is Commanded them from Heaven Not by Disturbing Princes from their Thrones nor Invading their Realms as your Father doth and defendeth he may do but by mildly Submitting themselves to the Powers on Earth and meekly Suffering for the Defence of the Truth what they shall Inflict Pag. 399. The Election of Bishops in those Dayes belonged to the People and not to the Prince And though by plain Force he placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully Reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their Right Pastor On this I further ask XXV If the Nonconforming People can prove That notwithstanding the times of Civil Usurpation and Bishops Removal their Pastors had a Lawful Call and title to their Office over them and they were truly obliged to them as in that just Relation Whether the Magistrates or Bishops Acts have made those Relations and Obligations Null That the Temples and Tythes are in the Magistrates Power we doubt not But more than Bishop Bilson even many Councils deny it of the Office and Pastoral Relation Yea the Universal Church was of the same mind And if so how prove you e. g. that the Relation of the Ejected London Ministers and their Flocks was Dissolved and that the Succeeders were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks XXVI That there are Alas Multitudes of Young Raw Injudicious besides Scandalous Priests no Man can deny that knoweth England and hath any Modesty If then honest People that are not willing to be Damned shall say We best know what is suitable to our Needs and what Teachers profit us and what not And we find that some are so Ignorant that they are unmeet as Plowmen to resolve the most concerning Cases of Conscience and their Conversation savoureth not of any serious belief of Christianity and the World to come and they do but Read a few dry words like School-Boyes saying a Weak Oration without Life or Seriousness and we can but little profit by them How prove you
that it is lawful for such to use more suitable helps though Men forbid it A Soul is precious God Worketh by Means and according to the suitableness of Means That agreeth not to some which others can make shift with Two or Three words from a Conformest that saith God can Bless the weakest Means to you or the Fault is in your self will not serve instead of needful Helps The King or Bishop have not Authority to Tie a Sick Man to Eat that which he cannot Digest or Hurteth him Every Man is neerliest concerned for his own Soul and most Entrusted with it Parish-Order it self is but a humane alterable Circumstance which I am not bound to observe at the hazard of my Edification and Salvation XXVII What if the Magistrate grant a Toleration of divers Modes of Worship as the French and Dutch Churches are here Tolerated and many in Holland and in many other Countries Are these separating Schismaticks that differ from each other If so it is not because they disobey the Magistrate for he Tolerateth them all If not then meer diversity of Modes of Worship maketh not Schismaticks XXVIII If it be no true Political Church in the strict sense as an Organized Society which hath not true Authorized Pastors and if any Parish have either Vncapable Persons or such as were never Consented to by the Flocks and so have no True Pastor and if the Bishops hold That Parishes are not proper Political Churches but parts of Churches having no Pastors that have the Power of the Keyes or the whole Essence of the Pastoral Office but only Half-Pastors that want an Essential Part of the Power If on any such Account any Parishes are no true Pastoral Churches Qu. Whether to Separate from such a Parish be to Separate from a Church in the sense in question XXIX The mutual Condemnations in the times of the Novations Donatists Nestorians Evtychians Monothelites Phantasiasts Image-Patrons c. tell the World how needful mutual forbearance is to prevent worse Divisions and Confusions And the Papists take themselves to be all of one Church though they differ even in Doctrines of Morality as dangerously as the Jansenists against the Jesuits have shewed and though many Sects and Orders be permitted to Live and Worship God with very great diversity in their several sorts of Monasteries Why then should the little differences of our questioned Assemblies be thought to be so great as maketh us not to be of one Church XXX Some good Christians think That though an undisciplined Church may be Communicated with occasionally yea and constantly while there is a hopeful Tryal of its Reformation yet when there is no hope after Patient Tâ—yal a better Course and Communion should be chosen where it may be had And they think that Multitudes whom they know to be prophane Swearers Cursers Drunkards Fornicators Haters of serious Piety Hobbists Infidels Atheists Sadduces c. are continued in the Church of England And they say they scarce ever heard one Man of all these Excommunicated nor one Man of them all ever brought to Publick Confession and Repentance And they think Lay Chancellours having not rightfully the Power of the Keys there is no ordinary Means of hopeful Reformation and Exercise of Discipline especially the Largeness of the Diocesses making it impossible to be used to One of an Hundred that according to the Law of Christ it should be used on And they think That the Church-Discipline is not only None as to the Right Use and made Impossible but worse than None while it is used most to Excommunicate from Christ's Church the True and Conscionable Members of Christ that dare not Conform and so to lead to their Imprisonment and utter Ruin And they think That no Man hath true Authority to confine them to such an Undisciplined and Illdisciplined Church and forbid them the Use of better where Christ's Discipline may be used Whether these Men be in the Right or in the Wrong if the Matter of Fact be true I should desire rather the Reformation of such a Church than the Reproach or Afflicting of Men as Separatists and Schismaticks that choose another sort of Communion as to their more Ordinary Practise not denying this to be a true Diseased Church And so much in these Thirty Instances about that which I think deserveth not the Reproach of any dangerous Separation I told you Thirty Instances also of Unlawful Separation which I named And now you may judge whether you spake to Edification when you said That the People are Condemned by their own Teachers without telling whom and for what and how far they Condemn them and how far not § 34. And Did you think the Consequence good That because we think it Lawful to Hear you yea and to many a Duty therefore we Condemn them for Hearing any one else that Conformeth not As if they that have Communion with your Diocesan-Church must have Communion with no other So far am I from your Opinion that I take it to be wofully Separating and Schismatical And will never be a Member of a Particular Church which will forbid me Communion with all others that differ from them yea that doth not hold its Communion in Unity with all the True Christian Churches on Earth Though a Schismatical Disputer for Prelacy tells me That though I Communicate with the Church of England I am a Schismatick for Communicating with Nonconformists who saith he are Schismaticks But he that will Communicate with no Church that hath any Guilt of Schism when the Christian VVorld is broken into so many Sects I doubt will be the greatest Schismatick and will Communicate with few on Earth And as Smith Baptized himself not liking any other Baptism this Man may become a Church to himself And indeed the word Condemn them sounds Harsh when it signifieth no more than that we Judge them to be Mistaken and Culpable If I Condemn every Man or every Church which I judge to be Sinners I must Condemn all Mankind I use not so harsh a Phrase of your Self as to say I Condemn You When yet I Judge your Book to be more Schismatical than the Meetings of most that I am acquainted with which you Accuse § 35. But yet your Mistake is Greater than I have hitherto mentioned I know not many if any that use to Hear Me who Separate from You Many of them are Episcopal and for your Liturgy and Ceremonies I think most of them go to the Parish-Churches and few if any that I know do deny it to be Lawful How then can you prove it True that we Condemn them What is it for Is it because they neither Separate from the Conformists or Nonconformists This is it that we Exhort them to It was an ill Slip to put our Condemning them for Commending them But a fair Exposition will make it Lawful § 36. But you say How they can preach lawfully to a people that commit a fault in hearing them I do not
left men as much power to make new Species of Churches as to diversifie the Forms of Common-wealth 8. And as to our disturbing your peace if you had built your frame on Christs foundation and laid your peace on the unity of the Spirit and the seven particulars named Eph. 4. 45. 6. and had not built it on uncharitableness on imperious usurpation nor that love of the world which Paul Servita saith brought in the Church corruptions you would not have been so tender nor your peace like an aspen leaf in the wind as that your Brethren who you say agree in Doctrine and the substance of worship with you cannot quietly joyn near you in the worship of God without your imposed words and ceremonies but they become disturbers of your peace It s a sickly peace that is so easily disturbed by so small dissent As Rome thinketh that all wrong her that do not obey her and pleadeth for Empire under the name of Communion so do some others and will enter a suite against them as Schismatiks that will not let them ride and lash them without complaint If you have the humility and Charity of a Christian without envy c. What harm doth it do you that I and such others worship God in another room without your book while your Church is as full as it can well hold Do you not differ much more among your selves as I before shewed And the Papists yet more among themselves and yet are in one Church and tollerated But so their Power and Wills may be obeyed some men can bear with much more against God Who heareth such out cries against ten thousand or twenty thousand in a Parish that come not to any Church at all as against a few Christians that pray and preach without your book what Informers what indictments what prosecutions what invectives are equally against all these aforesaid § 51. Serm. p 31. It is very uncertain whether the Primitive form were such as they fancy c but it s certainly our duty to preserve peace and unity amongst Christians Ans 1. Then it is certainly a sin to make racks to tear them and make concord impossible and say none shall have Communion with us that will not say and Swear what we bid them and that think any thing sin which we impose and to shut men out by Cannonical Excommunication and then call them Schismaticks in Presse and Pulpit for not coming in 2. If it be uncertain whether that which we desire be the Primitive form it is uncertain then whether you oppose not and fight not against the Primitive form 3. What you say is uncertain I shall God willing prove certain elsewhere and have done All is not uncertain to others which is so to you 4. Mark this you that are for the Divine right of Episcopacy as the Primitive forme instituted by Christ As he taketh it for uncertain as beyond Congregational formes so were it so if the Church should cast it out he seemeth to hold your endeavours to reduce it to be a sinful breaking of the Churches peace You are disturbers if in Holland Geneva Helvetia you would reduce them to that which you suppose to be the Primitive form It may be it was but from the circumstances of the times And so the head of the Church hath made no particular Church Species but left all to the better wit of men who knowes to whom § 52 Serm. It is impossible so to do if men break all orders in pieces for the fancy they have taken up of a Primitive Platform Ans Anglice It is impossible to preserve Peace and unity among Christians if men will not suppose that Christ never instituted his own Church formes or will not forsake his Institutions but fancy that they must be conformable thereto and will not preferre the wills and commands of Bishops to whom they never consented and take it to be a breaking of all orders in pieces not to do all that they enjoyn us though we take it to be heynous sin and will not give over Gods worship and our Ministry when they forbid us Dan. 6. We shall find no fault against this Daniel except it be concerning the Law of his God but if he pray openly when forbidden away with him to the Lyons for the Laws of the Medes and Persians are more inflexible than Gods § 53. As to what you say of preferring Morals and the ends it is more truly than prudently mentioned as to your cause For the very naming of it will make the Readers think whether your subscription and declaration and oaths and imposed practices which the Nonconformists judge unlawful be greater matters than their preaching the Gospel avoiding great sins the concord and strength of the Protestant Churches and the avoding temptations to wrath and persecution and divisions which will be bitter in the latter end Go learn what this meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice or needless Ceremony § 54. Serm. p. 32 Men may please themselves in talking of preserving peace and Love under separate Communions But our own sad experience shews the contrary For as nothing tends more to unite mens hearrs than joyning together in the same Prayer and Sacraments so nothing doth more alienate mens affections than withdrawing from each other into separate Congregations Ans 1. But do all separate from you that are in other Parish Churche◠than yours if not do all separate that differ as Cathedrals from Parish Churches or as conforming Preachers do from one another If not do they separate that omit a form or ceremony of yours 2. I am sorry if you have experience of the alienating of your affections from your neighbours that quietly worship God by you but it s like you know what you say For my part many of them have said and written more against me them against you and I thank God I love them heartily yea and that your own party from whom I have suffered far more It is mens diseases that make them impatient of a cross opinion or word or censure and then they cry out of mens unpeaceableness As Seneca saith They that are sore complainif they but think their sore is touched 3. Let the Magistrates keep Peace and punish all that abuse their brethren 4. But we easily grant to you that when men do not only differ but fly from each others Communion as unlawful it hath a great tendency to the alienations and evils which you mention Had we not thought so we had never stoopt and pleaded and begg'd of the Bishops to prevent or heal it as we did 1660 and 1661. And wo to the impenitent that are the cause of all and to this day will not be perswaded by all the sad experience that they complain of Sir instead of all your accusations and reasonings it would have better dispatched all the business would you but consider who it is that must cure the distance which you complain of I have fully proved
forbidden by the Law Had that been separation And how cometh when and where to be in When we are forbidden every time and in every place to preach to more than four Is any time or place allowed us to preach in You mean He is a separatist who preacheth being forbidden by Law But I am ready to give you a fuller proof than is now to be offered on this occasion that no man hath authority to forbid a faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-power to perform the office to which he is ordained And Secondly that we remain under a Divine obligation to it which such a Law 〈◊〉 dissolve As Bishop Bilson before saith if Princes forbid us we must go on with our work what if the King had turned against Episcopacy and Liturgy and forbad all the Episcopal to preach Would you think it sinful separation to preach By this you shew how easily you would lay down the work you are Vowed to if the Law did but forbid you How much then are Papist and Protestant Casuists mistaken that say the Law is null that is against the common good and that all power is only to edification And what limits do you set to this Till you tell us how can we judge of our separation what if an interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdome must all obey What if it be most must most obey What if it be more then can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that so binds us Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists Arrians Eutychians c. or only the Orthodox And do you set the people all to judge whether the King be Orthodox as the rule of their obedience to his Laws If I prove not that God bindeth me to preach call me disobedient but yet that will not prove me a separatist By this rule you may be a separatist as oft as the Law changeth if you will not change as fast as it Yea though you Judge the Laws impositious to be hainous sins yet you must do them all or give over your Ministry And so God must ask leave of the Rulers to be worshiped as God If he were a God of their making they might put him down And I think it will prove confusion and worse disobedience than our preaching is to lay all the peoples obedience herein on their opinion of the Rulers Orthodoxness no doubt but the heathen and heretical Rulers are Governours even of the Church though none hath power for destruction or against God The Duke of Brandenburghs Subjects judge him not Orthodox Are they therefore absolved from obeying him in matters of Religion Calvenists Subjects think Lutherane Princes not Orthodox and Protestants in France Hungary Poland judge their Papist Kings not Orthodox Yea what if we judge the Bishops not Orthodox that made the Cannons or Liturgy are we absolved from obeying them And what if any Subjects think that the King is not Orthodox And Parliaments who also make our Laws contain men of many minds And the Parliament of 1640. is said by the Bishops to have been far from Orthodox even to have been Presbyterians and Erastians and even for Rebellion and yet they made divers Laws which the King consented to and ratified Were not men obliged by those Laws And indeed if the Lawmakers being not Orthodox null his Laws about Religion why not all his other Laws But it may be you will say that it is not all the people that must judge whether the King and Parliament be Orthodox but the Bishops for them Ans But who shall judge whether the Bishops be Orthodox And if all be resolved into the implicite belief of the Bishops why not of the civil Rulers as well Or why not as the Papists on Pope and Councils I suppose to avoid all this you will not say that he is a separatist that preacheth when forbidden by any Prince whatsoever Turk Heathen Arrian Eutychian Idolater Papist Where then will you fix the notifying Character All men are heterodox in some degree How shall we know the degree which absolveth us from our obedience And how cometh an Orthodox man to be authorized to do mischiefs and forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than a heretick or a Christian more than a heathen I think he is bound to do more good then they and not authorized to do more hurt God never made him a judge whether the Gospel shall be preacht or not nor whether the people shall be saved or left to perish in their ignorance and sin Either then all are separatists that preach against the Laws of Heathens Hereticks or Papists And so the Orthodox Churches have in many or most Ages and places been separatists or else we are cast upon confounding impossibilities to know who the separatist is Especially in Aristocracies and Domocracies where the Rulers are of many minds and the people can never know them all nor when the Orthodox have the Major Vote And I would know whether it be only Rightful Princes or also Usurpers whose Laws are the bond of the Churches Unity If of Usurpers then all the Prelates that conformed not in the times of the late Usurpation were Schismatical separatists by your definition But to do them right few of my acquaintance that could by conformity slay in did then refuse conformity I hear that you were then no separatist But Bishop Guning Dr. Wild Dr. Hide and a great many more took another course and will not thank you if you stigmatize them with us But if it be not the Laws of Usurpers in the Roman Empire by your measure How few were the Emperours that came not in by meer conquest or by killing putting out the eyes or ejecting their predecessors or without any justifiable right And what a case Rome Italy Spain and Africa were in after the first conquests of the Gothes and Vandals and all the Western Empire in the days of the Henries Frederick and many others while men were fighting for the Empire and Popes claimed the making and unmaking of them all And even in France ever since the days of Chilperic for many Ages especially among the progeny of Charles the great it is not to be hid This way you destroy or confound the Churches I cannot imagine what you will reply to this unless you say that it is neither the Title nor the Orthodoxness of Princes which is necessary to make their Lawes the bond of Church unity but it is the goodness of their Laws at least that they impose no sin upon us Ans 1. Then if the Usurpers imposed no sin they were Schismaticks that obeyed them not ◠Let that be the rule who shall be judge whether it be sin or not If I be a discerner for my self I have told you how much and great sin I fear till you are displeased with the intimation And when you have proved all those particulars named to be no sins you have