of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers One would think that their warning had been fair but Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam The Lord have Mercy upon us 2. When the matter is throughly examined the difference between the Teachers and the old Separatists will be found not near so great as is pretended For what matter is it as to the nature of Separation whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or Vnlawful whether the Ministery of our Church be called a False Ministery or Insufficient Scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments which the old Separatists used only they are disguised under another appearance and put into a more fashionable dress As will be manifest by Particulars 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministry of our Church Sect. 4. I. Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons as Members of our Church to be unlawful For Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church And in the same Book he saith It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the Transient Sign of the Cross or for want of Godfathers c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who Separate in these things are not For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers which they take to be no small sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them And what is this but formal Separation But for all this Mr. B. may hold that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical for he saith it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practises and Persons if those be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them But here Mr. B. saith There is a necessity of departure and to joyn with other Pastors and therefore he must hold a formal Separation And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church that was never done by the greatest Separatists For they all held Communion in Faith with it And even Brown the Head of the old Separatists thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship and others thought they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion but not in Acts of Church Communion others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers though not in others and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful they must hold a necessity of Separation or that persons may be good Christians and yet be no Members of any Church For if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours If they declare themselves Members of another Church they own as plain a Separation as the old Separatists ever did if they do not and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members then they are Members of no Church at all So that if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they must either be Separatists or no good Christians upon their own Principles For saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country this were to exchange visible Christianity for visible at least Negative Paganism Now that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they are more forward to declare than I could have imagined In my Sermon I mentioned some passages wherein it seemed clear to me that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me some declaring in express terms That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches and of joyning to other Congregations And others saying That such a Concession viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful taken in their own sense will neither do them any harm nor us any service For as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 1. Many of them declare so and many declare otherwise And it 's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it 2. They dâ—clare Communion lawful but. Dâ— they declare Total Communion lawful The same Persons will tell us that both these Propositions are â—â—ue Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of Worship is so in others not And 3. Thâ—y will further tell us That Communion with some Parish chuâ—ches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines Preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together 1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful and that must be understood of any kind of Communion for the Second sort from whom they are distinguishâ—d hold total Communion unlawful and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's and the New-England way and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists 2. Those that do hold Communion lawful do it with so many restrictions and limitations that in practice it amounts to little more than the other For First It is only with some Churches and those it seems must be such as do not hold to our Constitution for he
I do not understand For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right especially a small part against the whole in one case then in the other Which makes me wonder at those who daâ—e call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any Men do enjoy their Estates And they who assert that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to adhere to their former Pastors as Mr. A. doth who saith They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws passed by general consent in Parliament but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation For the Papists then had the very same Plea that these Men have now vâ—z That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation between their former Church Guides and them and thereforâ— notwithstanding Acts of Parliament they were still hound to adhere to them For the Magistrate had no power in such matters and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers So much do these Men in pursuing the interests of their Parties overthrow the principles of the Reformation For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers and to put others in their places or he hath none if he hath none then What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation when the Popish Bishops and Priests were ejected and others put into their places If they say He hath a just power in some cases but not in theirs Is not this a Plea common to all For whoever thought themselves justly ejected Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment What then is to be done in this case if Men think themselves unjustly cast out The old Non-conformists said They ought to sit down quietly with this satisfaction that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly although they did not They might by joyning in their private capacities in Communion with our Churches and drawing the People to it by their example and encouragement have done more good both to the People and to this Church than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either But if they go upon such principles â—s these That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them That others are Vsurpers who come in their places That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws And that 't is Schism to separate from them notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our publick Assemblies I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians This I the rather insist upon because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it but that it is made the standing Plea for the necessity of the present Separation among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question Whether they can be said to erect new Churches or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations who were true Ministers and had their Congregations before others came into their places If they had done nothing worthy of ejection or exclusion from their Ministry whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function And consequently whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them as they are charged with the same practice There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned if Ministers be ejected without or against Law they who come into their places are no Usurpers and if they are cast out by Law they that succeed them are Usurpers so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration Secondly All those who come into any Pastoral charge whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings Nomination or others by the Presentation of Patrons are Vsurpers unless the People be pleased to give their free consent and if they do it not they may lawfully withdraw from them For saith Mr. B. the People have an antecedent Right to consent which none can take from them And he saith he hath proved it by many Canons that he was no Bishop that was not chosen by the Clergy and the People or came in without the Peoples consent Nay if they have the consent of some and not of the greater part those who did not consent may proceed to choose another Bishop if Mr. B. say true For these are his words If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People or 50000 or 20000 as ye will suppose and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters and a Thousand People or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or Consent of the Diocesan Church nor is it Schism for twenty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling as Mr. A. suggests there is nothing hinders them but that in spite of Laws they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops and new Pastors of Churches wherever they think they can make the Majority For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People say they to choose their own Pastors Again saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea If Bishops that have no better a Foundation i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination and not by the Majority of the People shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches and command the Peoples acceptance and obeâ—â—â—nce i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presentation the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom It is plain then all Bishops of the Kings Nomination all Ministers presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers the People may give them a good Title if they please but they are not to blame if they do it not For in them Mr. B. saith the chief Power is and sometimes he tells them they are bound to Separate however while they do not consent they are no Churches which they are set over and it is no Schism so to pronounce them nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace and the true and only way of Concord which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions only that they might have some pretence for their present Separation Sect. 12. 3.
to be a Member of those Churches and thought it lawful to communicate some times constant communion would be a Duty But because this seems so hard to be understood I will therefore undertake to prove it by these Two Arguments First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church Secondly From the particular force of that Text Philipp 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church If it be possible saith St. Paul as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask If there be not as great an obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church as with all Men and they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them And is not that possible and lies in them to do which they acknowledge lawful to be done and can do at some times What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles And cannot these prevail with Men to do that which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do towards joyning in Communion with us This I am perswaded is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority they refused it and they have been more and more backward ever since till now they seem generally resolved either to break all in pieces or to persist in Separation Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this i. e. saith he They did not enter their several Protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them And so they have been advising and considering ever since till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it and the meer necessity of defending their own practices makes them espouse these Principles Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith they had after the Plague and Fire at which they agreed That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy and wronging the Relator by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence viz. When it would not do more harm than good And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place he will find I did consider the force of those words when I put it that they resolved it to be lawful in it self although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it For they declared That it was in it self lawful and meet but the circumstances of that time did make them think it might do more harm than good and therefore it is said They delaid for a fitter opportunity which makes it clear they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing But that opportunity hath never hapned since and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it as Mr. A. plainly doth by such reasons as these Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good 1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable As though Separation were more eligible than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable and Schism were not more intolerable than Communion with a tolerable Church What will not Men say in defence of their own practice Was ever Schism made so light a matter of And the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church were not fit to be put in the ballance against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience Methinks it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate than always thus subtil and witty against the common sence and reason of Mankind 2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches i. e. be drawn off from their Separation 3. When it will harden the Papists As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more 4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general Yes no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so By these particulars it appears that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do Yet at last he saith he tells us as much is done as their Consciences will permit them Say you so Is it indeed come to this Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy or to make use of any parts of it in your own Meetings How often hath Mr. B. told the World That you stuck not at Set-Forms nor at the Vse of the Liturgy provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting publickly in a Writing on purpose That they did not meet under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England and were he able he would accordingly Read himself Is this observed in any one Meeting in London or through England Then certainly there are some who do not what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea That they never made one Motion for Presbytery or against Liturgies and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians And since that Mr. B. saith They did come to an Agreement wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy with some Alterations was required And are we now told That all that can lawfully be done is done Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles in coming to our Liturgy but Where are all the rest And Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies Do they not hereby discover that they are more afraid of losing their People who force them to comply with their humors than careful to do what they judge lawful towards Communion with our Church Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass that any who think
themselves when they saw no hopes of recovering the Churches Communion if they once fell from it Add to this that Novatus or Novatianus for the Greeks confounded their Names in his Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria saith That he was forced to do what he did by the importunity of the Brethren who out of their zeal for the Purity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline would not comply with the looser part which joyned with Cornelius and therefore chose him to be their Bishop And so much appears by Pacianus that Novatus coming from Carthage to Rome makes a party there for Novatiaâ—us in opposition to Cornelius which consisted chiefly of those who had stood firmest in the Persecution in their Name he Writes to Novatianus declaring That he was chosen by the zealous Party at Rome whereas Cornelius had admitted the lapsed to Communion and consequently corrupted the Discipline of the Christian Church Here we have a concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas Zeal for Reformation of Discipline the greater Edification of the People and the asserting their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was not likely to promote their Edification But notwithstanding these fair pretences the making a Separation in the Church was every where condemned as a great Sin as appears by St. Cyprian Dionysius of Alexandria Theodoret Epiphanius and others Dionysius tells the Author of the Schism that he had better have suffer'd any thing than thus to have made a Rent in the Church and it was as glorious a Martyrdom to die to prevent a Schism as to avoid Idolatry and he thinks it a much greater thing the one being a Martyrdom for the Church the other only for ones own Soul St. Cyprian charges those who were guilty of this Schism with Pride and Arrogance and doing unspeakable mischief to the Church by breaking the Peace of it and will hardly allow those to be Christians who lived in such a Schism when as Epiphanius observes they still pleaded they had the same Faith with the Catholick Church and yet St. Cyprian will not allow that to be true Faith which hath not charity and saith That there can be no true charity where Men do thus break in pieces the Vnity of the Church The Meletians in Aegypt agreed with the Catholick Christians in the Substantials of Religion holding the same Faith with them as Epiphanius relates the Story and their Schism began too about preserving the Discipline of the Church and the best means for the Edification of the People They allowed a Restitution for the lapsed to the Communion of the Church but after a very severe Discipline and an utter incapacity of those in Orders as to any parts of their Functions But Peter Bishop of Alexandria thought the milder way the better whereupon a Separation followed and the Meletians had distinct Churches which they called The Churches of the Martyrs This Schism grew to that height that they would not pray together in Prison nor in the Quarries whither they were sent Meletius being a Bishop was deposed by Peter of Alexandria but he went on still to promote the course of Separation in Thebais and other parts of Egypt upon which the Council of Nice in their Synodical Epistle deprived him of all Episcopal Power and the People that adhered to him of the Power of choosing their own Pastors or rather of proposing the names of those who were to be ordained And so according to Dr. O. they had just cause to continue their Separation still although it were condemned by the Council of Nice Audaeus began his Schism out of a mighty zeal for the Discipline of the Church and a great freedom which he used in reproving the faults of the Bishops and Clergy but meeting with ill usage he withdrew from the Churches communion with his Disciples although he still retained the same Faith and agreed in the Substantials of Religion with the best Christians but forbore all communion with them which Epiphanius accounts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most dreadful thing in the World and yet upon Dr. O's Principles of Separation they did a very commendable thing as long as their design was to restore the Churches Discipline and to consult their own greater Edification The followers of Eustathius Sebastenus are on this account likewise excused who withdrew from the publick Congregations on a pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia and stand condemned in several Canons of the Council at Gangrae so are those mention'd and condemn'd in the Councils of Constantinople and Carthage and the Separation of Felicissimus and his Brethren from St. Cyprian all which are set down together in my Sermon but are gently passed over by Dr. O. and Mr. B. and the rest of their Adversaries Only one saith That the Errors of the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus both in Opinion and Practise were very gross which the Council takes notice of and condemns Yet as gross as they were there was a pretence of greater Sanctity and Purity in them For their abstaining from Marriage and peculiarity of Habits and Separate Meetings were all carried on with the same Pretence To proceed then On the same accounts the Donatists will be vindicated in the main grounds of their Schism although they were mistaken in the matter of fact concerning Coecilian for their great pretence was to preserve the purity of the Churches Discipline as may at large be seen in Optatus and St. Augustin and yet they frequently and deliberately call it a most Damnable and Sacrilegious Schism The Luciferians pretended such a zeal for the true Faith and the Discipline of the Church that the only pretence for their Schism was that they could not communicate with those who had subscribed to Arianism or received Ordination from Ariâ—n Bishops as may be seen at large in the Book of Marcellinus and Faustinus And they joyned with the party of Vrsinus at Rome against that of Damasus and complained they were deprived of the liberty of choosing their own Pastors So that upon these grounds there hath scarce been any considerable Schism in the Christian Church but may be justified upon Dr. Owens Reasons for Separation from our Church Sect. 26. 4. Another Argument against this course of Separation is That these grounds will make Separation endless Which is to suppose all the Exhortations of Scripture to Peace and Vnity among Christians to signifie nothing For nothing being more contrary to Vnity than Division and Separation if there be no bounds set but what the fancies of Men dictate to them be sufficient Grounds to justifie Division and Separation any People may break Communion with a Church and set up a new one when they think fit which will leave the Christian Church in a remediless condition against those who break its Peace and Communion It being a true saying of Mr. Cottons of New-England That they that separate from their Brethren farther than they have just Cause shall at length
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
Therefore this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so but till these are brought forth which never yet were or ever will be they must bear the blame of the Schism if they Separate on these accounts Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches rather than Communion with them which I have discover'd to be of that Nature as leads Men to the greatest Separation Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously and so need the less pains to discover their minds and those are II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful But there is a difference among these For First Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers but not in the Liturgy or any proper Act of Church-Communion This I have shewed was the Opinion of Robinson and the New-England Churches and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye who Wrote a Discourse about it and answered all Objections Yea he goes so far as to own the publick preaching as a great blessing to the Nation and he thinks the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent as they have liberty and opportunity the more publick and National Ministry But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People to be of another opinion which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them and he was a very sagacious Man Secondly Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship And some are arrived to that height that one of my Answerers confesseth That they refuse to hear him because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches It seems then they not only think it unlawful to hear us but to hear those who think it lawful and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry and our Ministers Antichristian which Mr. Nye was so far from owning that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful and utterly denies it to be anti-Anti-christian because the Articles of our Religion to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions are Orthodox and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down the State of the present Controversie as to Separation from our Communion will soon appear And any one may now discern 1. That I do not mean bare local Separation For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No I do assure him provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings as having a purer way of worship and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too who after his trifling manner talks of a bellum Parochiale as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it 2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine not determin'd by our Church upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it And I wonder who ever did But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination went no farther thâ—n the Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatcht but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty art made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism 3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live This is to Answer Mr. B's Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches and publick and private administrations of Sacraments But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner that they may go off the better with the common people And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes But what is all this to the purpose If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London than he wears in the Countrey Is he not the same Man for all that Are not David's Psalms the same whether they be Sung or Said Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune or as set by a Parish Clerk That which only looks like Argument and my business is to mind nothing else possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing That I say which looks like Argument is That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation This proceeds upon a mistake for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules suppose there are some different Customs among us What is this to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches To the choosing of new Pastors and sitting down as he speaks with purer Administrations All which this Man owns in his Book as their avowed Principles and Practices and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church with the different Modes of Worship among our selves He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner 4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches but have certain priviledges allowed them as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came But what have
against the Teachers of the Circumcision Vers 2. Beware of Dogs beware of Evil Workers beware of the Concision But speaking so reproachfully of them he shews in the next words that every thing that was excellent in the design of the Law was accomplished in the Gospel and so he proceeds to declare how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest priviledges of the Law in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel which shews that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers who were very busie in disturbing the Peace of the Churches and drawing Disciples after them pleading the necessity of observing the Law and dividing the Christians into different Communions on that account as appears by their proceedings at Antioch where they did separate themselves from the Gentile Christians and St. Peter for a time complyed with them If such as these had not been busie at Philippi where it appears that Iews inhabited What need St. Paul give so much caution against them What need all this dispute concerning the Priviledges of the Law If it be allowed that they were there carrying on the same designs which they did in other Churches then it follows he had great reason to perswade them to Vnity so earnestly as he doth Philip. 2. 1 2. and to give so much caution against them and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law which being done the Apostle after his usual method makes a digression concerning himself viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward toward Christian perfection making no longer any account of legal priviledges Which I take to be his meaning when he saith Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward c. So St. Hierome understands it Legis obliviscens ad perfecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo Forgetting the Law I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel This being understood the Apostles sence naturally follows according to his former design Let us therefore as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14. agree in pursuing our main end But then comes the case of those who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law there being many and plausible Arguments on their side well saith the Apostle if they are doubtful I advise them however not to hearken to these false Teachers for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you wait patiently upon God which is the best means for your satisfaction If any be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law let them make no disturbance in the Church about it And so Erasmus saith It ought to be understood of the Iudaizing Christians who did not yet discern that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished however saith he they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it But What sence can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded Otherwise than what As many as be perfect be thus minded to pursue your main end but if any be otherwise minded Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end that is incredible Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat about which there were then very different apprehensions and that it is certain there were about the Law among the Christians then The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into but of such as were at that time among them and so one Copy reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded they had no difference concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things before them viz. the happiness of the Gospel but they had concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things behind viz. the force and obligation of the Law And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion but was carried on so far as to break the Peace of the Church about it it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians Secondly Whether the Rule which the Apostle layes down be only a Rule of mutual forbearance Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things The sence according to Dr. O. is this That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences Which is a sence very uncertain and doth not reach to the differences then among them It is very uncertain because it sets no bounds to differences and supposes the continuance of such differences among them which he designed to prevent by perswading them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind of one soul as well as to mind the same things Besides the difference then on foot was none of the smaller differences of opinions but that about which they differ'd was urged on one side as necessary to Salvation by the false Apostles and opposed on the other as pernicious and destructive to it One of my Answerers saith That the Iudaizing Christians were leaven'd with such a corrupt Opinion as was by no means to be born with which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main shewing the dreadful consequences of it And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbearance in such a case as this especially when in the same Chapter he gives so great a caution against them with so much unusual sharpness of expression Beware of Dogs beware of Evil Workers beware of the Concision Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance as to the differences then among them these we know there were let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mutual forbearance But now if we suppose the Apostle to speak to the difference about the Law about which the Churches were then divided the sence is plain easie and pertinent For so either 1. It takes in those who hitherto differ'd about the Law and then the sence is although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians you live with keep within one Rule break not the bounds of Peace and Vnity which Christ hath set you run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing courses 2. It is directed to those who have got the start of others and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them especially so have a mighty regard to the Peac◠and Vnity of Christians not to break the
Commonâ—ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments nor to Separate from others as meaner and lower Christians because they are not come up to that perfection which you have attained to And so either way it contains an excellent Rule and of admirable use to the Christian Church not only at that time but in all Ages of the World viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things should go as far as they can towards preserving Peace and Communion among Christians and not peevishly separate and divide the Church because they cannot in all things think as others do nor others on the account of greater sanctity and perfection despise the inferior sort of Christians and forsake their Communion but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace and the Vnity of the Church Thirdly How far this Rule hath an influence on our case 1. It follows from hence that as far as Communion is lawful it is a duty since as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule And so much Dr. O. doth not deny when he saith Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion or in the Principles of Faith and Obedience should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ Then as far as they agree they are bound to joyn together whether it be as to Opinion or Communion Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion as far as that is judged to be lawful 2. That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others though of lower attainments and to keep within the same Rule which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judged necessary to hold the Members of a Christian Society together But saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it This is the Apostles Rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down quietly and wait for farther instruction and not to break the Peace of the Church upon present dissatisfaction nor to gather new Churches out of others upon supposition of higher attainments If the Rule reach our Case saith he again it must be such as requires things to be observed as were never divinely appointed as National Churches Ceremonies and Modes of Worship And so this Rule doth in order to Peace require the observation of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority provided they be not unlawful in themselves nor repugnant to the World of God But the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies Feasts Fasts Liturgies c. What then It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace And without this no Vnity or Order can be preserved in Churches The Apostles saith he gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule viz. of mutual forbearance Rome 14. And herein the Apostle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence but as a Teacher divinely inspired That he was Divinely inspired I do not question but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances which resolution may not always bind when the circumstances are changed For then the meaning of the Apostle must be that whatever differences happen among Christians there must be no determination either way But the direct contrary to this we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem upon the difference that happened in the Christian Churches And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way yet the Apostles made a determination in the case contrary to their Judgment Which shews that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alledged both wayes is no standing Rule to the Christian Church but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Welfare of that Church which they are bound to preserve And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers whereas it is most evident that the true Apostles made this peremptory Decree in a matter of great consequence and against the pretence of Conscience on the other side But saith Dr. O. further The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty provided they did not impose on others and the Dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile Churches did viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed upon them I Answer 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty out of respect to the Law of Moses and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church which might have been extremely hazarded if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters For 1. They were none of their lawful Governors but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them 2. They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation and not as meerly indifferent things And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians as to the Impositions of the false Apostles Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text. The Author of the Letter saith 1. That I ought to have proved that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures and 2. That other Church-Guides had the same Power as the Apostles had But what need all this If it appear 1. That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scriptures as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule for omitting some Divine Rules or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government 2. That it is a standing Rule of Scripture that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church And this I have shewed was the Apostles design in the words of this Text. Sect. 20. Others pretend that the Apostle means no more by these words but that Christians must live up to their knowledge and mind that one thing This is a very new Exposition and the Author of it intends
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
That they look on no Human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men otherwise if they agree with Scripture and be appointed for good ends although they be not expresly mention'd in Scripture they are rather to be looked on as Divine than Human and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself nay they say though the Laws seem very hard and unjust a true Christian will not stick at obeying them if they command nothing that is wicked Ioh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremonies The First Commanded The Second Forbidden The Third neither Commanded nor Forbidden The Vnity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First and yet for every omission the Communion of the Church is not to be broken The Second breaks the Churches Vnity yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men but for the Third Men ought not to break the Vnity of the Church And in another place he gives particular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches the Exorcism in Baptism the Linnen Garments and Wax Candles the Holy-days and Confession c. and declares That we ought not to break off communion with Churches or make a Schism for these things Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of indifferent ceremonies and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches Amyraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Lutheran Churches saith That those which came in use after the Apostolick times have no other obligation on us than that for the sake of indifferent things though at first appointed out of no necessity nay though there be inconveniency in them yet the Churches Peace ought not to be disturbed And he very well observes That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so or at least are tolerable if it be false then they are troublesome and not to be born if it be impure and lead to Idolatry then the ceremonies are tainted with the Poyson of it But saith he the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches as their occasions serve and so do others And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine not only congratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland but Pray'd for the same in Germany too as Bishop Davenant tells us who proves at large that there is no sufficient Reason to hinder it which he makes to lie only in three things I. Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences II. The Practise of Idolatry III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear And now I desire our Brethren who justifie their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful to reflect upon these things Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad which have harder Terms of communion than we What would they think of the Exorcism of Infants of Auricular Confession of Images in Churches and some other things besides what are observed among us Do we want Discipline Do they not in other Churches abroad The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Vnion of Protestant Churches declared That little or none was observed among them Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Vnion with them For What Vnion can be justifiable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful They may pity them and pray for them and wish for their Reformation but an Vnion doth suppose such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may communicate in another Do they allow this to the Lutheran Churches If not then they render Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible because unlawful If they do will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to our own Church Can they think Separation necessary from our Church on those grounds which are common to us with other Protestant Churches and yet think Vnion desirable and possible with them notwithstanding Do they think that 〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Lutheran Churches although they have the Cross in Baptism Kâ—eâ—â—g at the Communion the Surpless and other Ceremonies which we have not and yet Is it necessary to Sâ—parate from our Churches Communion on the account of such things as these where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion Either therefore they must differ from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and the most emineâ—â— Protestant Divines abroad or they must renounce this Principle of Separation Sect. 25. 3. This will justifie the ancient Schisms which have been always condemn'd in the Christian Church For setting aside the Ceremonies of which already and the use of the Liturgy and Holy-days which is common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an Vniversal consent in all parts of the Christian World the other Reasons for Separation are such which will justifie the greatest Schismaticks that ever were in the Christian Church viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and due means of Edification and depriving the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel in providing for their own Edification For What gave occasion to the Novatian Schism which began so soon and spread so far and continued so long but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and better means of Edification and humoring the People in the choice of their own Pastors There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on as to Evangelical Discipline 1. The Power of the Keys 2. The Purity of the Church 1. As to the Power of the Keys they said That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church but under certain restrictions which if Men exceeded the Church had no Power to release them and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men when Men fell in time of Persecution 2. The Churches Purity ought to be preserved by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being receiv'd into communion again They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance but they said the Church could not And this they pleaded would tend very much to the Edification of Christians and would make them more watchful over
yet the more heinous `that it is commonly father'd upon God Lastly that it is most unlike the Heavenly State and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil for he would not destroy it by dividing it against it self Remember now saith he that Schism and making Parties and Divisions in the Church is not so small a Sin as many take it for I conclude this with his Admonition to Bag shaw upon his lessening the Sin of Separation Alass dear Brother that after so many years Silencing and Affliction after Flames and Plagues and Dreadful Iudgments after Twenty years Practice of the Sin it self and when we are buried in the Ruines which it caused we should not yet know that our own Vncharitable Divisions Alienations and Separations are a Crying Sin Yea the Crying Sin as well as the Vncharitableness and Hurtfulness of others Alass Will God leave us also even us to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh Doth not Iudgment begin with us Is there not Crying Sin with us What have we done to Christ's Kingdom to this Kingdom to our Friends dead and alive to our selves and alass to our Enemies by our Divisions And Do we not feel it Do we not know it Is it to us even to us a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance Woe to us Into what Hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves Yea that we should continue and Passionately defend it When will God give us Repentance unto Life Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously and then consider Whether he can go on to Excuse and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM But it may be said That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively with enslaving our Iudgments and Consciences to others which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle and he saith This is a Medicine worse than the Poyson even as 't is much better to have a Rational Soul though subject to Mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong bit and bridle To make it plain that he makes little or nothing of the Sin of Separation we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer which was That if it be lawful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is agreed in our Case then a bare difference of Opinion as to some circumstances of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient Ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of Mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to farther Separation Where we see plainly the inconvenience urged is endless Separation Doth he set any kind of bounds to it No but only talkes of inconsiderable and petty inconveniencies and some little trouble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will â—his is the worst of it and he must grant that though Separation be endless there is no harm in it But he that could find out a medium between Circumstances of Worship and Substantials can find out none between endless Separation and the enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences for he supposes one of the two must of necessity be Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists For this is their Argument Either we must give up our Iudgments and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides or there will be endless Separation He grants the consequence and cries What then It is nothing but the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and this is much rather to be chosen than the other But any sound Protestant that understands the State of the Controversie between us and them as this Author apparently doth not will presently deny the Consequence because a prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together and leaping over Hedge and Ditch being kept within no bounds And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Principle of enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure and if he doth not suppose it his Discourse is frivolous and impertiâ—â—â—t For a due submission to the Rules of our established Church without any force on the Consciences of Men as to the Infallibility of Guides or necessity of the things themselves will put a sufficient stop to Separation which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions Sect. 28. 5. Lastly I Argue against this Separation from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men who it may be will little regard other inconveniences if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God Which I now undertake to prove upon these Suppositions 1. That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church For it is not possible to suppose that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men with plainer Precepts and stronger Arguments than this is The places are so many that it were endless to repeat them and therefore needless because this is agreed on all hands So that violation of the Vnity of the Church where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden But it happens here as it doth in the other case that as Murder is always a sin but there may be some circumstances which may make the taking away a Mans life not to be Murder so it may happen that though Schism be always a sin yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism but then they must be such Reasons as are not fetched from our Fancies no more than in the case of Murder but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law For he only that made the Law can except from it 2. The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church For although the former be a duty yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian which is to joyn together as Members of the same Body And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church it is said The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are
all partakers of that one Bread And by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body whether we be Iews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit The Vnity of the Christian Church St. Paul saith is to be preserved by the bond of Peace and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head whom he calls One Lord so they are joyned together by One Faith and One Baptism Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds as well as Internal that is One Faith and One Baptism as well as One Lord and One Spirit so the manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by External Acts for How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual as inward love to the Members of the Body being present in Spirit c Therefore the Obligation to preserve the Vnity of the Church doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion 3. Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient Reason for it Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoyned we are to suppose it still to hold where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear Although God hath with great severity forbidden Killing yet when himself appointed particularly cases wherein Mens Lives were to be taken away we are thereby assur'd that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden so in the present case if it appear that although Separation from the Câ—mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin But then as in the former case no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice so here no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end will justifie his Separation for the guilt of the sin remains as great in it self And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church which our Saviour prayed for and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere From hence Irenaeus saith That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own advantage than the Churches Vnity who for slight causes or for any make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ and do what in them lies to destroy it They speak for Peace saith he but they mean War they strain at a Gnat and swallow Camels The benefit they hope to bring to the Church cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism Nothing provokes God more saith St. Chrysostom than to divide his Church Nay saith he the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it The Mischief the Church receives by it is greater than it receives from open Enemies for the one makes it more glorious the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies when it is set upon by its own Children This saith he I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church If their doctrine be contrary to ours for that reason they ought to abstain if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to do it so much the rather Do no you know what Corah Dathan and Abiram suffer'd and not they only but those that were with them But you say they have the same Faith and they are very Orthodox Why then saith he do they Separate One Loâ—d one Faith one Baptism If they do well we do ill if we do well they do ill If they have the same Doctrines the same Sacraments For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours It is nothing but vain glory ambition and deceit Take away the People from them and you cut off the disease And after much more to that purpose I speak these things saith he that no Man might say he did not know it to be such a sin I tell you and testifie this to you that Separation from the Church or dividing of it is no less a sin than falling into Heresy If the sin then be so great and dangerous Men ought to examin with great care what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin And I do earnestly desire our Brethren as they love their own Souls and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us and set up other Churches in opposition to ours which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox and to agree with them in the same Doctrine and the same Sacraments 4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation First In the case of Idolatrous Worship For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church Neither be ye Idolaters Flee from Idolatry Keep your selves from Idols Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And to the case of Idolaters St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babylonians Come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing Now in this case where there is so plain a Command there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation if Men cannot joyn with a Church in their Religious Worship without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden Secondly In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body like putrid Members lest they should corrupt the rest St. Paul commands Titus when there is no hopes of reclaiming such to exclude them from the Society of Christians St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine Thirdly In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account And this was the case of the false Apostles who urged the
and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him And it is no hard matter to guess what answer Saint Augustin would have given him But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches Quidam de Episcopis in Provinciâ nostrâ saith Saint Cyprian and yet he speaks of his Predecessours times which shews the very ancient extent of that Province In provinciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates saith he again which shews that more Cities than Carthage were under his care Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra in his Epistle to Cornelius In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration Victor mentions one Crescens who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onely in these parts of Africa let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points but had some for the right Constitution of Churches and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him It is observed by Epiphanius that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches especially those in Maraeotis of which Athanasius himself gives the best account Maraeotis saith he is a Region belonging to Alexandria which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself whence we observe 1. That here were true Parochial Churches for so Athanasius calls them Churches and not bare Oratories 2. That these had Presbyters fixed among them who performed divine Offices there 3. That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belonged to him 4. That these were at that distance that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy So in Alexandria it self there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them as Epiphanius several times observes and it would be a very strange thing indeed if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop But Mr. Baxter's great argument is from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity whence he concludes that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly Whereas all that Athanasius saith amounts to no more than this that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches the People grew impatient and so at last he yielded to them But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present and that this Church would hold them all If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion and finding themselves too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London Athanasius saith not a word more than that it was Easter and there appeared a great number of People such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City Doth he say or intimate that all the Christians of the City were present that none of them went to the lesser Churches or were absent though the Croud was so great Doth he not say the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them But the argument is of greater force in this respect that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church But to serve this hypothesis Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great City and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exceeding great City so great that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past mens comprehension and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great persecution when he was banished he kept up the Assemblies in the City and at Cephro he had a large Church partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him and partly from other places and when he was removed thence to Colluthion which was nearer the City such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him that they were forced to have distinct Congregations so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie and so Athanasius useth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Christians meeting in several Congregations If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before under the sharpest persecution is it possible to imagin in so great a City after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation There is no hopes of convincing men that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities I shall onely add one Instance more from Antiquity which is plain enough of it self to shew the
26 Canon which saith that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which he mentions as an abortive thing published by Iohn Fox which last any one that hath seen them knows to be a mistake nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt yet not so destroyed but with some diligence he might have seen it but it was for nothing of this kind that Book underwent so severe a censure as Mr. B. insinuates but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons which I think are plain in this case But Mr. B. saith this is not the lesser excommunication but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth this is certain the Minister is impowred is required to doe this the question then is whether this be not such a Censure of the Church as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister I grant this is not the lesser excommunication according to the Vse of this Church for that supposeth the sentence passed and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person upon extraordinary occasions But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication as appears by several passages in S. Augustin produced by Spalatensis to this purpose viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament Which is very true of the greater Excommunication but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders whereby they were suspended from full Communion but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given These were said to be in the state of Penitents It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion others onely on their death-beds others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance of which those were left to be Iudges who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of church-Church-communion but he saith the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull being still Candidates as he calls them so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion but not wholly cast out of the Church because the Christians might as freely converse with these as with any but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries But there was no question wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion there was a Power of Discipline because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged but in so governing the Members of the Church that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion it is thereby evident that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him I answer 1. What need this publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself is not this sufficient I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion he advised them to withdraw themselves from it till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences and then they might come to it Here is no publick Admonition by name and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders and yet the Church be a true Church and Christians obliged to communicate with it as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion But my design is onely to speak to this case so far as the Church is concerned in it Sect. 16. If it be said that notwithstanding this the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed I answer 1. That is not our question but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny And what other abuses have crept in ought in an orderly way to be reformed and no good man will deny his assistance in it 2. It is far easier to separate or complain for want of Discipline than to find out a due way to restore it No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it than Mr. Baxter hath done especially in that it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least 3. The case of our Churches now is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times For the great Reason of Discipline is not that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled for to assert that were Donatism but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
Rights of Patronage are as just and legal Rights as men have to their Estates and consequently every Minister duly presented hath a legal Title to the Temple and Tithes as Mr. B. calls them But this doth not saith he make a Minister for their Souls and the Parlament cannot dispose of their Souls The meaning of all which is if the People be humorsome and factious they may run after whom they please and set up what Minister they please in opposition to Laws And so for instance suppose a Parish be divided in their Opinions about Religion as we know too many are at this day all these several parties viz. Anabaptists Quakers yea and Papists too as well as others will put in for an equal share in what concerns the care of their Souls and consequently may choose a several Pastour to themselves and leave the Incumbent the bare possession of the Temple and Tithes But if there be no other objection this may be thought sufficient that he was none of their choosing being imposed upon them by others who could not dispose of their Souls By which means this pretence of taking care for their Souls will be made use of to justifie the greatest disorder and confusion which can happen in a Church For let the Person be never so worthy in himself the People are still to have their liberty of choosing for themselves And who are these People Must all have equal Votes then according to Mr. B.'s opinion of our Churches the worst will be soonest chosen for why should we not think the worst People will choose their like as well as the worst Patrons and the worst Bishops But if the Profane must be excluded by what Law Is it because they have no right to the Ordinances But have they no right to their own Souls and to the care of them therefore they are equally concerned with others Yet let us suppose all these excluded as no competent Iudges shall all the rest be excluded too who are incompetent Iudges then I am afraid there will not be many left And whatever they pretend the People wherâ— they do choose do trust other mens Judgments as well as where the Patrons present and to prevent popular tumults such elections are generally brought by a kind of devolution to a few Persons who are entrusted to choose for the rest But if all the People were left to choose their own Pastours it is not to be imagined what parties and factions what mutual hatreds and perpetual animosities they would naturally fall into on such occasions Do we not daily see such things to be the fruits of popular elections where men are concerned for the strength and reputation of their Party What envying and strife what evil speaking and backbiting what tumults and disorders what unchristian behaviour in general of men to each other do commonly accompany such elections Which being the natural effects of mens passions stirred up by such occasions and there being so much experience of it in all Ages of the Christian Church where such things have been I am as certain that Christ never gave the People such an unalterable Right of choosing their own Ministers as I am that he designed to have the peace and unity of the Church preserved And of all Persons I do the most wonder at him who pretends to discover the Onely way of unity and concord among Christians that he should so much so frequently so earnestly insist upon this which if it be not the onely is one of the most effectual ways to perpetuate disorder and confusion in a broken and divided Church And so much for the Plea for Separation taken from the Peoples Rights to choose their own Ministers Sect. 26. Having thus dispatched all the Pleas for Separation which relate to the Constitution of our Church I come to those which concern the Terms of Communion with us whâ—â— are said to be unlawfull One of the chief Pleas alledged for Separation by Dr. O. and Mr. A. is that many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men which are not according to the mind of Christ. These are very general words but Dr. O. reckons up the particulars which setting aside those already considered are the use of the Aëreal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the Religious observation of Holy-days and the constant use of the Liturgy in all the publick Offices of the Church As to this last I shall say nothing it being lately so very well defended by a learned Divine of our Church To the other Mr. B. adds the use of Godfathers and Godmothers and now I am to examine what weight there is in these things to make men seriously think Communion with our Church unlawfull When I found our Church thus charged with prescribing unlawfull terms of Communion I expected a particular and distinct proof of such a charge because the main weight of the Cause depended upon it And this is the method we use in dealing with the Church of Rome We do not run upon general charges of unscriptural Impositions and things imposed on mens Consciences against the mind of Christ but we close with them upon the particulars of the charge as Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host and we offer to prove by plain Scripture that these are forbidden and therefore unlawfull But I find no such method taken or pursued by our Brethren onely we are told over and over that they judge they think they esteem them unlawfull and they cannot be satisfied about them but for particular arguments to prove them unlawfull I find none which makes the whole charge look very suspiciously For men do not use to remain in generals when they have any assurance of the Goodness of their Cause Yet to let the Reader see that I decline nothing that looks like argument in this matter I shall pick up every thing I can find which seems to prove these terms of our Communion to be unlawfull or to justify their Separation In the Epistle before my Sermon I had used this Argument against the present Separation that if it be lawfull to separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is acknowledged in our Case then a bare difference of opinion as to some circumstantials of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to further Separation This Argument others were willing to pass over but Mr. A. in his Preface undertakes to answer it in all the parts of it which being so material to our business I shall now distinctly consider and like an able Disputant he allows nothing at all in this Argument for
Book which far better deserved the Title of a Plea for Disorder and Separation not without frequent sharp and bitter Reflections on the Constitution of our Church and the Conformity required by Law as though it had been designed on purpose to Represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and Orders established among us for there are no fewer than 30 Tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity set down in it And all this done without the lest Provocation given on our side when all our Discourses that touched them tended only to Union and the Desirableness of Accommodation If this had been the single Work of one Man his Passion and Infirmities might have been some tolerable excuse for the indiscretion of it but he Writes in the Name of a Whole Party of Men and delivers the Sense of all his Acquaintance and if those Principles be owned and allowed by them there can hardly be expected any such thing as a National Settlement but all Churches must be heaps of Sand which may lie together till a puff of Wind disperses them having no firmer Bond of Vnion than the present humor and good will of the People But of the Principles of that Book I have Discoursed at large as far as concerns the business of Separation in the Second and Third Parts of the following Treatise But as though this had not been enough to shew what Enemies to Peace Men may be under a Pretence of it not long after the same Author sets forth another Book with this Title The true and only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches As though he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth and were to set the Terms of Peace and War among all Christians but I wish he had shewed himself such a Pattern of Meekness Humility Patience and a Peaceable Disposition that we might not have so much Reason to Dispute his Credentials But this is likewise Fraught with such impracticable Notions and dividing Principles as though his whole design had been to prove That there is No True Way of Concord among Christians for if there be no other than what he allows all the Christian Churches this day in the World are in a mighty mistake When I looked into these Books and saw the Design of them I was mightily concerned and infinitely surprised that a Person of his Reputation for Piety of his Age and Experience in the World and such a Lover of Peace as he had always professed himself and one who tells the World so often of his Dying and of the Day of Judgment should think of leaving two such Firebrands behind him as both these Books will appear to any one who duely considers them which have been since followed by 4 or 5 more to the same purpose so that he seems resolved to leave his Life and Sting together in the Wounds of this Church And it made me extremely pity the case of this poor Church when even those who pretend to Plead for Peace and to bring Water to quench her Flames do but add more Fuel to them This gave the first occasion to those thoughts which I afterwards delivered in my Sermon for since by the means of such Books the zeal of so many People was turned off from the Papists against those of our Church I saw a plain necessity that either we must be run down by the Impetuous Violence of an Enraged but Vnprovoked Company of Men or we must venture our selves to try whether we could stem that Tide which we saw coming upon us And it falling to my Lot to Preach in the most publick Auditory of the City at a more than usual Appearance being the first Sunday in the Term I considered the Relation I stood in under our Honored Diocesan to the Clergy of the City and therefore thought my self more obliged to take notice of what concerned the Peace and Welfare of the Churches therein Upon these Considerations I thought fit to take that opportunity to lay open the due sense I had of the Unreasonableness and Mischief of the Present Separation Wherein I was so far from intending to reflect on Mr. B. as Preaching in the Neighborhood of my Parish that to my best remembrance I never once thought of it either in the making or Preaching of that Sermon And yet throughout his Answer he would insinuate That I had scarce any one in my eye but himself His Books indeed had made too great an Impression on my Mind for me easily to forget them But it was the great the Dangerous the Vnaccountable Separation which I knew to be in and about the City without regard to the Greatness or Smallness of Parishes to the Abilities or Piety of their Ministers or to the Peace and Order of the Church we live in which made me fix upon that Subject although I knew it to be so sore a place that the Parties most concerned could hardly endure to have it touched though with a Soft and Gentle hand However I considered the Duty which I owe to God and this Church above the esteem and good words of Peevish and Partial Men as I had before done in my dealing with the Papists and I resolved to give them no Iust Provocation by Reproachful Language or Personal Reflections but if Truth and Reason would Anger them I did not hold my self obliged to study to please them But against this whole Vndertaking there have been two common Objections First That it was Unseasonable Secondly That it was too Sharp and Severe To both these I shall Answer First As to the Unseasonableness of it What! Was it Unseasonable to perswade Protestants to Peace and Unity That surely is very seasonable at any time and much more then And I appeal to any one that Reads it whether this were not the chief and only Design of my Sermon And to say This was Unseasonable is just as if a Garrison were besieg'd by an Enemy and in great danger of being surprised and although they had frequent notice of it given them yet many of the Soldiers were resolved not to joyn in a common body under Command of their Officers but would run into Corners a few in a Company and do what they list and one should undertake to perswade them to return to their due obedience and to mind the Common Interest and some Grave by-standers should say It is true this is good Counsel at another time but at this present it is very Unseasonable When could it be more seasonable than when the sence of their danger is greatest upon them At another time it might have been less necessary but when the common danger is apparent to all Men of Sense or common ingenuity could not but take such advice most kindly at such a season But this advice was not given to themselves but to the Magistrates and Judges and that made it look like a design to stir them
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they
a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black These are now the Ceremonies about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church and any sober considering Man free from Passion and Prejudice would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church and is at this day about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask is Why were these few retained by our Reformers which were then distastful to some Protestants and were like to prove the occasion of future Contentions I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Retain or to Apoint these Ceremonies and then proceed 1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the Innocent Rites and Practises which were observed in the Church before And What could more harden the Papists then to see Men put no difference betwen these It is an unspeakable Advantage which those do give to the Papists who are for Reforming 1600 years backward and when they are pinch'd with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity working in the Apostles times as though every thing which they disliked were a part of it Next to the taking up Arms for Religion which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France especially among Learned and Moderate Men as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church For the time was when many Great Men there were very inclinable to a Reformation but when they saw the Reformers oppose the undoubted Practises of Antiquity equally with the Modern Corruptions they cast them off as Men guilty of an unreasonable humor of Innovation as may be seen in Thuanus and Fran. Baldwins Ecclesiastical Commentaries and his Answers to Calvin and Beza But our Reformers although they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors that were sound in Religion and therefore they retained these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church II. To manifest the Iustice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see they did not Break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were subtle and learned Men as Gardiner Heath Tonstall c. and nothing would have rejoyced them more than to have seen our Reformers boggle at such Ceremonies as these and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the People Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers scrupling the Episcopal Vestments Peter Martyr tells him plainly That such needless scrupulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation For saith he since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary if we once declare things indifferent to be unlawful they will have no patience to hear us any longer And withall hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches and those Ancient Churches which have hitherto to been in great esteem III. To shew their Consent with other Protestant Churches which did allow and practice the same or more Ceremonies as the Lutheran Churches generally did And even Calvin himself in his Epistle to Sadolet declared That he was for restoring the Face of the Antient Church and in his Book of the true way of Reformation he saith He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for Decency but those that are Symbolical Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament as indifferent Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable Since therefore so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful our first Reformers for this and the foregoing Reasons thought it fit to retain them as long as they were so few so easie both to be practised and understood Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad did not wear off at their Return home in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign For they reteined a secret dislike of many things in our Church but the Act of Vniformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoyned I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it no not by the Dissenting Brethren that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva Knox was forbidden to Preach here because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen but Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of Preferment and Imployment in the Church The Bishops at first shewed kindness to them on the account of their forward and zealous Preaching which at that time was very needful and therefore many of them were placed in London Where having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies and a desire of farther Reformation of our Liturgy but finding that they had gained ground they never ceased till by inveighing against the Livery of Antichrist as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies they had inflamed the People to that degree that Gilby himself insinuates That if they had been let alone a little longer they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church This was the first occasion of pressing Vniformity with any rigor and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others But as kindness made them presumptuous so this severity made them clamorous and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva Beza after much importunity undertook to give an Answer to them which being of great consequence to our present business I shall here give a fuller account of it We are then to understand that about this time the Dissenting Party being Exasperated by the Silencing some of their most busie Preachers began to have Separate Meetings This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London and it appears by an Examination taken before him 20th of Iune 1567. of certain persons who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches but for gathering together and making Assemblies using Prayers and Preachings and Ministring Sacraments among themselves and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding for that Purpose The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences and then told them That in this Severing
Harrison His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown and the Defence of that Admonition When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament viz. Vnlawful Ministry Antichristian Government and False Worship Gifford a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex undertook to Answer them in several Treatises And it is observable that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile Notorious and Damnable Schism because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches and set up New Ones of their own Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks but saith They make a Vile Schism Rending themselves from the Church of England and condemning by their Assertions the Whole Visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time and he adds That the end of Brownism as it was then called is Infinite Schismes Heresies Atheism and Barbarism And the same Author in his Second Book reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People hath these remarkable words Now look also on the People where we may see very many who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues and Godly Duties as namely to be Meek to be Patient to be Lowlie to be full of Love and Mercy to deal Vprightly and Iustly to Guide their Families in the Fear of God with Wholsome Instructions and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them give themselves wholly to this even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion namely to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church against Bishops and Ministers and one against another on both sides Some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher but not to the Prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gone further and fallen into a Damnable Schism and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in these matters But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists appears by his Stating the Question in the same Preface For I shewed saith he in express words that I do not meddle at all in these Questions whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods Word whether they be many or few whether they be small or great but only thus far whether they be such or so great as make our Churches Antichristian Barrow saith That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist and he is joyned with Cartwright Hildersham Brightman and other Non-conformists by the Prefacer to the Desence of Bradshaw against Iohnson and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison Browns Colleague against Separation proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence through his being and placing in a particular Church and justly required of him by the Church or Spiritual Body through that same inforcing Law of the coherence and being together of the parts and members which is the express Ordinance of God So that saith he unless I hold the Congregation whereof I am now disanulled and become no Church of Christ for the not separating an unworthy Member I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises or yet depart away being come together without Breach of the Bond of Peace Sundring the Cement of Love empairing the growth of the Body of Christ and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere Richard Bernard calls it An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of But I need not mention more particular Aâ—thors since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists in the Name of the Non-conformists it is said That because we have a True Church conâ—â—ting of a Lawful Ministery and a Faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation they say We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate as long as they continue in this Schism Sect. 9. But for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie we must consider What things were agreed on both sides and where the Main Points of Difference lay 1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it In their Apology presented to King Iames thus they speak We testifie by these presents unto all Men and desire them to take knowledge hereof that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation between Iohnson and Iacob saith That the first Separatists never denied that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them to be true Christians and in the state of Salvation but always held professed and acknowledged the contrary Barrow saith That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs and deemed them saved notwithstanding the false Offices and great corruptions in the Worship exercised And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death he saith He had Reverend estimation of sundry and good hope of many hundred thousands in England though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church in the present Communion Ministry Worship Government and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies 2. The Separatists granted That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it Thus they express themselves in their Apology Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for blemishes and imperfections which every one according to his Calling should studiously seek to cure and to expect and further it until either there follow redress or the Disease be grown incurable And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith written by Iohnson and Ainsworth they have these words None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and Corruptions which may and so
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
intended in Silencing of them But our Churches whereof we are Ministers are no private and secret Assemblies such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State but are publick professing their Worship and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his Countenance Authority and Protection and we are set over those Churches not only by a Calling of our People but also by the Authority of the Magistrate who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some If therefore after our publick calling to Minister to such a known and Publick Church not by the Church only but by the Magistrate also the Magistrate shall have matter against us whether just or unjust it skilleth not and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate or to oppose Sword to Sword And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly and against the will of the Church and should therein sin yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate neither doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister how great and deserving soever to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate by leaving her publick standing to follow his Ministery in private and in the dark refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy 4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath by Gods Word in such a case so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live when in some competent measure they may publickly with the grace and favor of the Magistrate enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another and except he have a calling to Minister in some Church he is to be content to live as a private member till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him and to call him again to his own Church labouring mean while privately upon particular occasions offered to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God those People that are deprived of his publick Labour And I take it to be the duty of the People in such a Case if they will approve themselves faithful Christians and good Subjects so to submit to the Ministery of another as that by Prayer and all other good dutiful and loyal means they may do their best endeavor to obtain him of whom against their will they have been deprived and still to affect and love him as their Pastor now if the People do thus then is that Minister called to be Silent not only by the Magistrate but by them also though with much grief To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw all that Mr. B. saith is That Bradshaw thought we should submit to a Silencing Law where our Ministery was unnecessary and so doth he If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes he would never have given such an Answer as this For Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity or no necessity of their Preaching but upon the allowance or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time than there is now when himself confesseth several years since That Thirty years ago there were many bare Reading not Preaching Ministers for one that there is now And what was there which the old Non-conformists more complained of than the want of a more Preaching Ministery This then could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason and Mr. Baxter upon second thoughts cannot be of that opinion I have yet one Argument more to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation Which is that where two Duties do meet a greater and a less whereof both cannot be done at the same time the lesser duty must yield unto the greater but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming teacheth and the practice thereof causeth to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine and a Sin in Practice The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose That Ministers deprived by Law are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law 's And to confirm this several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument and to give an account of the disparity of the case as to the Apostles times and ours For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground to which they Answer That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do because their Ministery was of far greater excellency and usefulness and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles than it could be with them For say they What one Minister of the Gospel is there that dare be so presumptuous as to say That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity and use for the Glory of God and good of his Church as was the Ministery of his Apostles The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles viz. the planting of the Church and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations was such as could not have been performed by any other but the Apostles alone but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity there is no such danger and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined though they Preach not the Gospel is Preached still and that soundly and fruitfully Did these Men think the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel did reach to their case Can Mr. B. imagine that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach although they were silenced by our Laws And now I hope I have proved that to be evidently True which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false But if after all this Mr. B. will persist in saying That he knew those who did otherwise all that I have to say to it is That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance both of the one and the other Party if they were such as he represents are not to be the Standard for all the rest for it seems he was not very happy in either PART
the Gospel Was not the same Authority the same charge as to both of them Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty and none at all to the other Is this possible to perswade impartial Men that for 18 years together you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws and yet never thought your self bound to do that which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach and not without leave from the Bishop and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too viz. the African but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments so that if one obligation were stricter than the other that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in for 18 years together and why he might not as well in the other is not easie to understand However Why all this while no Constant Communicant with any Church What no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of No Obligation upon a Christian to that equal to the necessity of Preaching These things must seem very strange to those who judge of Christian Obligations by the Scripture and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church What was this Communion intended for The antient Churches at this rate might easily be capacious enough for their Members if some never joyned with them in so long a time But he hath communicated occasionally with us Yes to shew what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with but not as a Member as himself declares and this occasional Communion makes him none For Mr. A. saith Their occasional Communion with us is but like any of our occasional Communion with them or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher or occasional going to a Popish Chappel which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice or ten or twenty times as long as they declare it is only occasional communion it makes them no Members of our Churches for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion Secondly They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered although they may be occasionally present in it Now if Men who think our constant communion unlawful Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations as Mr. A. speaks and to choose new Pastors this is gathering new Churches and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gather'd The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter Such saith he of the dissenting Ministers as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also If this be true as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles then we see plainly a Separation owned notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches For here is not only a lawfulness but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations for Preaching Hearing and other Religious Duties And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches Pastors People and joyning together for Religious Worship in a way separate from our Assemblies For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them yet they are so far from allowing constant communion that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship And what was there more then this which the old Separatists held For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation which Giffard Answered they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation and then declare that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors with whom they might joyn in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different from what must follow from the Principles of those who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties And if there be a necessity of Separation as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold that seem most moderate the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion will not excuse them from the guilt of the other For as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute and some held one way and some another And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us that he looks upon it but as drinking a single glass of Wine or of Water against his own inclination to a person out of Civility when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else It seems then this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls as the other is destructive to their health So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence Mr. A. brings several instances to prove that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful where constant is no duty as with other Parish Churches upon a Iourney at a Lecture c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church where he goes to hear a Lecture c. but the question is about the lawfulness of Separation where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful For a man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion and yet withdraws from it And it is a wonder to me none of my Friends my Adversaries I am loth to call them could discern this It is lawful saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French Dutch or Greek Church Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty Yes if he were obliged
Separation from a Church wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship for if they be not such Separation must be a formal Schism because such persons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church but set up other Churches of their own Now the way I shall take to shew the insufficiency of these Causes of Separation shall be by shewing the great Absurdities that follow upon the allowance of them These Five especially I shall insist upon 1. That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation 2. That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches 3. That it justifies the antient Schism's which have been always condemned by the Christian Church 4. That it makes Separation endless 5. That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church Sect. 22. 1. The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation Which I shall make appear not from the Testimonies of our own Writers who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church but from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France who can be the least suspected of partiality to our Church I begin with Calvin against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken 1. In the General He assigns two marks of the Visible Church the Word of God truly Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institution 2. He saith Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to humane conveniencies 3 That although those stand as Members of particular Churches who may not be thought worthy of that Society till they are duly cast out yet the Churches themselves having these Marks do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches and ought to be so esteemed 4. Men ought not to Separate from or break the Vnity of such Churches And he hath this notable saying upon it God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments And a little after he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ a destruction of his Truth a mighty provocation of his Anger a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks 5. That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church yet as long as it retains those Marks Separation from it is not justifiable nay although some of those faults be about Preaching the Word and Administration of Sacraments for saith he all truths are not of equal moment but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept up Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss continuing in the Communion of the Church and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it And he at large proves what great allowance is to be made as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches and he saith Mens Moroseness in this Matter although it seems to flow from zeal yet it much rather comes from Spiritual Pride and a false opinion of their own holiness above others Although saith he there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah yet they never set up new Churches nor erected other Altars whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices but whatever the People were as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them they lifted up pure hands to God although in such an impure Society The same he proves as to Christ and his Apostles From whence he concludes That Separation from such Churches where the true Word of God and Sacraments are is an inexcusable fault But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it and the Worship of God so corrupted that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness And the truth of the Gospel being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communion of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions especially when they Anathematize those who will not comply with them But doth he mean any indifferent Rites or Ceremonies where the Doctrine is sound No but False Doctrine and Idolatrous Worship as he frequently declares And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed and some Corruptions remaining in it must overthrow the fundamental grounds of the Reformation as they are explained by Calvin himself Sect. 23. Among their later Writers no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology And the Grounds he goes upon are these 1. That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those who go about to destroy and ruin Christianity 2. If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith offends our Consciences and overthrows the service which we believe due to God if the differences have been small and such as we might safely have yielded unto then he will grant that their Separation was rash and unjust and they guilty of the Schism 3. He proves that they had weighty reasons for their Separation which are these 1. Imposing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith and yet not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation but such as are pernicious and destructive to Salvation for which he instanceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Presence in the Sacrament which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments nor requires the adoring it it neither divides nor mutilates it nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin all which follows from the Popish Doctrine From whence he concludes That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors is an unjust Separation 2. Requiring such Worship as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity which saith he proves the necessity of our Separation and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host which the Church of Rome strictly requiring and the Protestants believing it to be a meer Creature they cannot give it without Idolatry from whence he concludes our Separation to be â—ust because it was necessary Besides this he gives instances in the
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
then there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was concerning which these things may be observed 1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessours in Prison which he would have them to doe by turns every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage he gives this reason of it that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men it being now impaired by the fall of some during the persecution In the case of Philumanus Fortunatus and Favorinus he declares he would give no judgment cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint when many of his Clergy were absent And in another Epistle he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage and then he mentions Britius Rogatianus and Numidicus as the chief Presbyters remaining with them besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City And in Constantinople of old saith Iustinian in his Novels were 60 Presbyters for in one he saith The custom was to determin the number and in another that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople Let any one now consider whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations and at Carthage we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians that in the time of Persecution although very many stood firm yet the number of the lapsed was so great that Saint Cyprian saith Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation 2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command nor their own Place nor the future Iudgment of God nor the Bishop who was set over them and had done that which was never done in foregoing times to challenge those things to themselves with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy Wherein he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle saying that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion he complains of these Presbyters that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui Cathedrae reservare reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place and therefore charges that nothing further be done in this matter till his return when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen Lucian returns him answer that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and upon such Discipline as he should impose they were to be received to Communion So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessours they return him answer that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop as an argument of their great modesty and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them and they declare their resolution to doe nothing in this matter till they had a new Bishop By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People to appoint and ordain their own Officers Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers the same he doth soon after concerning Celerinus and Numidicus When he could not go among them himself by reason of the persecution he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters to visit in his name and to take care of the poor and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy Who give an account in the next Epistle that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation 3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People but from the Institution of Christ. So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter Thou art Peter c. And
whatsoever you shall bind c. From whence saith he by a constant succession of times such a course hath been always observed in the Church that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct Since this saith he is a Divine Institution I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me concerning the lapsed since the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the standing People In his Epistle to Antonianus he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world and in that to Cornelius that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus and to Pupianus where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop and to Stephanus that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course Let the Reader now judge whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church But we have this advantage from this appeal that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgment any one may see when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church but what was generally observed over the Christian world And now let Dr. O. give an account how a change so great so sudden so universal should happen in the Christian world in the Government of the Church that when Christ had placed the Power in the People the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs without any controul from the People which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear that the Power was at first lodged in them and not in the People For as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History and that over all the world and in a way of ambition in such humbling times without all manner of opposition for 300 years together and immediately after the Apostles had it been usurpation or innovation When and where is innovation without opposition Would not Elders so many seeing and knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed Aërius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable The force of which reasoning will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease Sect. 5. 2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture The matter of fact is that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture yet saith he there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way The thing I desired was that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations they would prove that they did make new and distinct Churches and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province Who ever denied or disputed that On the contrary the proof of this is a great advantage to our Cause for since where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province it speaks of them as of different Churches but when it mentions the Christians of one City it calls them the Church of that City as the Church of Ierusalem the Church of Ephesus but the Churches of Iudea Galilee and Samaria what can be more evident than that the Christians of one City though never so numerous made but one Church If one observe the language of the New Testament one may find this observation not once to fail that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number they are the Churches of a Province as the Churches of Iudea the Churches of Asia the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of it is still câ—lled the Church of that City as the Church at Antioch the Church at Corinth and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together they are the 7 Churches but when spoken to single it is the Church of Ephesus the Church of Smyrna c. Which being spoken without any discrimination as to the difference of these places in greatness and capacity or the number of Believers in them doth evidently discover that what number soever they were they were all but the Church of that City For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus Sardis Pergamus and Laodicea which were great and populous Cities than in Thyatira and Philadelphia which were much less especially considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephesâ—s and the mighty success which he had in preaching there which will amount to no great matter if in three years time he converted no more than made up one single Congregation And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power and prevalency of the Gospel I cannot but wonder what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province as Galatia and Macedonia he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations who denies that but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City though never so great made but one Church and uncontroulable evidence from Antiquity that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City All that he saith further to this matter is that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves because in every one of them Elders were ordained Act.
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
their number as it was objected on both sides if it were proved they were not to be allowed for generally then every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties but in some places they had but one where the People were of one mind and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa both Parties striving to increase their Numbers Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places Carthage was a very large City and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time as I have already shewed And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major Restituta in which the Bishops always sate as Victor Vitensis saith there were several other considerable Churches in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage as the Basilica Fausti the Basilica Leontiana the Basilica Celerinae mentioned by Victor likewise who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum The Basilica Novarum The Basilica Petri. The Basilica Pauli And I do not question there were many others which I have not observed for Victor saith that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop maximam turbam Clericorum a very great multitude of Clergy all which he immediately banished And without the City there were two great Churches saith Victor one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom and the other where his body was buried at a place called Mappalia In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage taking in those who were trained up to it And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion as he calls it in one Church and at one Altar Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop and so setting up one Altar against another was setting up one Bishop against another as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate and so there were as many Altars as Churches So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist that in the City where he was Bishop the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence that not onely the Oblations were made there and the Communion received but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin which I have mentioned elsewhere but from Optatus who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers for saith he illà c ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove In the African Code there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside which evidently proves that there were not onely more places but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks as they often did the African Council decrees that after the decease of such a Bishop if the People had no mind to have another in his room they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop Which shews that they thought the Dioceses might be so large as to hold the People that were under two Bishops And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops In one it was determined that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them without limitation of distance after that that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before but if the Donatist Bishop were converted then the Diocese was to be divided between them If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese he that did take the pains in it was to have those places laid to his Diocese unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop that he was not to blame Let Mr. Baxter now judge whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes as he confidently affirms Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government and he tells this particular story of it that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there the man did accordingly and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman President to complain of their insolence and to crave his assistance which he saith he did lest he should be blamed for his negligence who was the Bishop of that Diocese And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena and he saith he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will to be better instructed as being under his care but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away himself upon which he writes a long Epistle to him In another Epistle he gives an account that there was a place called Fussala which with the Country about it belonged to the Diocese of Hippo where there was abundance of People but almost all Donatists but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them those places were all reduced but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo he took care to have a Bishop placed among them but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop he was fain to resume it as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala which he mentions afterwards However it appears that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint
great extent of Diocesan Power then and that is of Theodoret a great and learned Bishop and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches for so many Parishes saith he are in my Diocese which he had then enjoyed twenty six years Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret And yet these Parishes did not change their species for he saith they were Churches still This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle But without any considerable ground unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis For what if Theodoret ' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy Is that a sufficient argument to reject them unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles with the History of those times or with his other Writings Which are the Rules Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death And it is supposed that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him which was the occasion of writing it his other Epistles are so full of it that Mr. B. never read the rest if he calls this into question upon that account That Hypatius Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost which Nicephorus saw doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit But he is much mistaken if he thinks there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples which he compared with the Vatican and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret ' s name Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie to be spurious What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret ' s Works I do not well understand unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them But there are two things he objects which seem more material 1. That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time 2. That he proves from other places in Theodoret that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches 1. As to the first certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove that one such City as Cyrus then was had 800 Churches in it But by Cyrus Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus as will afterwards appear If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy Strabo and Pliny then there would not appear the least improbability in it since many considerable Cities were within it as Beroea now Aleppo and Hierapolis and extended as far as Euphrates Zeugma being comprehended under it The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others in that Province there was a Metropolitan who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus or Cyrrhus But notwithstanding I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province but of his own peculiar Diocese for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City which was under Theodoret's care within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order as he complains in several Epistles and there it is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regio Cyrrhestica and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius where he saith it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth And he saith in another Epistle that Christianity was then so much spread among them that not onely the Cities but the Villages the Fields and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown In his Epistle to Nomus he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion another with the Eunomian another with the Arian Heresie which were all converted by his care and in another place he saith he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion ' s Doctrine in his Diocese and the great pains he took to root it out and the success he had therein And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives as Tillima Targala Nimuza Teleda Telanissus which are sufficient to shew that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches his Diocese being forty miles in length and as many in breadth So that Mr. B. must reject not onley that Epistle to Leo but the rest too and his other Works if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy which is too hard a task to be undertaken without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought 2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses which all men know to have been very different but about the extent of Episcopal Power whether it were limited to one Parochial Church or was extended over many And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this I extreamly failed of my expectation as to the other places of Theodoret which he promised to produce For I find five or six places
cited out of his History but not one that comes near any proof of this matter The 1. proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia where there were no Christians Therefore in Theodoret's time there was no Diocesan Episcopacy The 2. shews that in a small City of Thebais Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished and there were but a few Christians yet there was a Bishop Who ever denied this where there was a prospect of converting more as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased new Bishops were made which this is very far from The 3. proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force without any Synod of Bishops or Choice of the Clergy or Request of the People I suppose by this time Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church which I am sure he had not from Theodoret nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria The 4. is intended to prove that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly which met onely in one place at once But it is very unhappy that Theodoret shews just the contrary in that place for he saith that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his very words to whom he saith Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church Which Mr. B. thus translates Valens found the Orthodox even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them of which he dispossessed them I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret and I dare say he will see cause to admire it But if any one can imagin that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation for my part I must give him over as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to but of what it was in its settled state The 5. is from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers I am ashamed to reade much more to confute such arguments as these For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation The 6. proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism It is true Theodoret saith Doliche was a little City and so he tells us Cyrus was no great one but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese which for any thing we see in Theodoret might be as large as we have evidently proved from him the Diocese of Cyrrhus was Let the Reader now judge whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches viz. for personal Communion and men make another is not this a violation of Christ's Command and setting up Man against God I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation and therefore the extending it to more can be no violation of Christ's Command or setting up a new species of Churches as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meekness towards his Adversaries charges me for speaking against this principle of his with pleading for presumption profanation usurpation uncharitableness schism what not What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness Why I set down a saying of his as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed That is not to the business for that which I quoted it for was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mens devising and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable and that the imposing it as Divine is an intolerable usurpation and all this at the same time when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord My business is now to shew Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this I need no more than one of Mr. B. ' s own Cautions in his Premonition viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops as he calls them over Parochial Bishops as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace There are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter ' s Arguments to prove that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office was settled for all following Ages 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form but we never reade of any abolition discharge or cessation of the Institution 〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of mutability as settling one form of Government for one Age onely and no longer 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastours Sacraments c. and to say they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with to the end of the world Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave Successours in the care and Government of Churches have a great deal of weight in them and overballance the difficulties on the other side As upon this occasion I think fit to declare From whence I argue thus That which is onely a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
and confusion will follow if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith without being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority Which is all one as to suppose that every Family may govern it self because a Kingdom is made up of Families without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom No saith Dr. O. the case is not the same For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations But God by the Light and Law of Nature by the ends and use of the Creation of man by express Revelation in his Word hath by his own Authority appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government So say I that God by the Light and Law of Reason by the ends and use of a Christian Society by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations For if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment so in the case of Churches since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant settle and govern Churches and set up Rulers in them but still under their Authority can any thing be plainer than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves But as in the former case if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions and to have placed them in convenient Seats and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint and as they found themselves decaying should nominate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours Without breaking in pieces into so many Families every Master governing his family by himself which would certainly ruin and destroy them all because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves So it is again in the case of Churches The Apostles planted them and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them still reserving the main care of Government to themselves but giving excellent Rules of Charity Peace Obedience and Submission to Governours and as they withdrew from particular Churches within such a precinct as Crete was they appointed some whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them and therefore in this case here is no more independency in particular Congregations than in the other as to private Families which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians and their mutual preservation and defence as in the former case In which we believe the civil Government to be from God although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles when the matter of fact is attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses Lastly as in the former case several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security and become one Kingdom so in the latter case several Bishops with the Churches under them might for promoting the common ends of Christianity and the Peace and establishment of their Churches joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church which being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping upon the Rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed as an universal Pastour must doe will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is Which I therefore mention that any one may see that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction for the Nature of the thing it self and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches is sufficient for it And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches viz. What the nature of a Christian Society and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require For whatever tends to the support of Religion to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions from the very nature of the thing and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it It being then taken for granted among all Christians 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it We may reasonably infer that whatever tends to promote this Vnion and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it is within the design of the first Institution although it be not contained in express words Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith Government and Worship be the more likely way to promote Religion to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason as to these ends In the Congregational way there may be as many Religions as Churches I do not say there are but we are arguing now upon what may be from the nature of the thing Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians another of Papists another of Arians another of Quakers another of Anabaptists c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind But if they be it is meer chance and good hap there being no obligation upon them to have any more
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom So it is said concerning Timothy himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's taking him into the Office of an Evangelist So in the choice of the Deacons the Apostles bid them find out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of good reputation among them And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose where he gives an account how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe Here it is plain that they were of the Apostles appointment and not of the Peoples choice and that their Authority could not be from them whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern and although their number was but small at first yet as they increased though into many Congregations they were still to be under the Government of those whom the Apostles appointed over them And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others and he brings the Instance of Moses when there was an emulation among the Tribes what method he took for putting an end to it by the blossoming of Aarons Rod which saith he Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel and thereby to bring Glory to God now saith he the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church which the sense shews to be his meaning therefore foreseeing these things perfectly they appointed the persons before mentioned and left the distribution of their Offices with this instruction that as some died other approved men should be chosen into their Office Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith well-pleased discharging their Office with humility quietness readiness and unblameableness being men of a long time of good report we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office It seems some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal not onely on themselves but the Christian Church which made Clemens write this Epistle to them wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves than to continue making such a disturbance in it and if they were good Christians they would do so and bring more glory to God by it than by all their heat and contentions Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain 1. That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People but appointed by the Apostles or other great Men according to their Order 2. That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church about those who should bear Office in it 3. That all that the People had to doe was to give Testimony or to express their approbation of those who were so appointed For he could not allow their power of choosing since he saith the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it And it seems very probable to me that this was one great reason of the faction among them viz. that those few Popular men in that Church who caused all the disturbance represented this as a great grievance to them that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others and not chosen by themselves For they had no objection against the Presbyters themselves being allowed to be men of unblameable lives yet a contention there was and that about casting them out and such a contention as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordainâ—d and therefore it is very â—ikely they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen But it seems the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church took 〈…〉 them leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained And this is plain even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis to which Mr. Baxter refers me For the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onely to this giving Testimony therefore saith he God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ in the Presence of the People for what reason that they might give them Power no that was never done under the Law nor then imagined when S. Cyprian wrote but he gives the account of it himself that by their presence either their faults might be published or their good acts commended that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all The People here had a share in the Election but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person And therefore he saith it was almost a general Custom among them and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice that when any People wanted a Bishop the neighbour Bishops met together in that place and the new Bishop was chosen plebe praesente the People being present not by the Votes of the People quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit which best understands every mans Conversation and this he saith was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus who was put into the place of Basilides Where he doth express the Consent of the People but he requires the Iudgment of the Bishops which being thus performed he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus For Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry and joyned blasphemy with it had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick and desired onely to be received to Lay-Communion upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf that he might be restored Sabinus finding this makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the Peoples Power and yet here we are to consider 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned 2. Another Bishop was put into his room not by the Power of the People but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops 3. They
had the judgment of a whole Council of African Bishops for their deserting him 4. For a notorious matter of fact viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession 5. All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this doth amount to no more than that the People were most concerned to give Testimony as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People to hear what they had to object against them and said it was a hard case when the Christians and Iews did so about their Priests the same should not be done about Governours of Provinces who had mens lives and fortunes in their hands But no man could ever from hence imagin that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governours of Roman Provinces Origen saith The Peoples presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop it must be astante Populo the People standing by and this is that Saint Paul meant when he said A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop by the Divisions of the People that they were like to have shaken the Emperour's Kindness to the Christians For such a flame was kindled by it that he saith it was near destroying both the Church and the City and they had certainly drawn Swords if the Providence of God and fear of the Emperour had not restrained them Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet and after much trouble to the Emperour and many meetings of Bishops at last Eustathius was chosen Greg. Nazianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop saying it came to a dangerous sedition and not easy to be suppressed and he saith the City was very prone to it on such occasions And although there was one Person of incomparable worth above the rest yet through the Parties and Factions that were made it was a hard matter to carry it for him He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections that he wishes them alter'd and the Elections brought to the Clergy and he thinks no Common-wealth so disorderly as this method of Election was Evagrius saith the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable upon the division of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius the People rising against the Magistrates and Souldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order and at last they murthered Proterius Such dangerous Seditions are described at Constantinople upon the Election of Paulus and Macedonius by Sozomen and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius and after the death of Atticus by Socrates and after the deprivation of Nestorius And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius and about the Election of Flavianus at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom at Verselles by Saint Ambrose at Milan by Socrates and many other places I shall onely adde a remarkable one at Rome on the choice of Damasus which came to bloodshed for several days and is particularly related by Ammianus Marcellinus and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the Peoples consenting Power and so there are in all humane affairs But are these tolerable inconveniencies Is this Power still to be pleaded for in opposition to Laws as though Religion lay at stake and onely Magistrates were bad men and the People always good and wise and vertuous A man must have great spite against Men in Power and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wicked debauched and enemies to Piety and at the same time dissemble and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People besides their Ignorance and incapacity of judging in such matters and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreasonable contentions on such occasions But Saint Chrysostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases Saint Hierom saith they are apt to choose men like themselves and saith elsewhere they are much to be feared whom the People choose Origen saith the People are often moved either for favour or reward 3. That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters as Saint Ierom and others shew For by the Constitution of that Church before the alteration made by Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria was not onely to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters but by them So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs saith that after the death of their Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to election and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop and to the other Bishops to consecrate him To which the Bishops assented onely saying if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose but not otherwise Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the time of the Nicene Council and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith the custom was alter'd by a Council among themselves which determin'd that they might choose the most deserving person whether of that Body or not And there could be no room for popular elections whereever that Custom obtained which the Counterfeit Ambrose speaks of ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding But if this be onely a particular conceit of that Authour yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches without any mention of choice made by the People So when Narcissus retired from Ierusalem Eusebius saith the neighbour Bishops assembled and consecrated one Dius in his room and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius in whose time Narcissus returned but being grown very old Alexander was brought in to assist him by Revelation and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successour and acquainted the Clergy with it but not the People great disturbance was feared hereupon the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them and to settle their new Bishop who went and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly S. Augustin himself declares the sad effects he had often seen of the Churches Election of Bishops through the ambition of some
attribute Iustification to the Sacraments and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies However since they attribute so spiritual effects to them it is an argument they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship as much as they do on Prayer with which they compare them in point of efficacy But with what face can this be objected against our Church which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us and declares that they are no otherwise received in our Church than as they are purged from Popish Superstition and Errour And therefore all opinion of merit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship which being removed they remain onely naked Ceremonies i. e. as Cassander well expresses it Words made visible or teaching Actions whose design and intention being towards us and not towards God they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship although they be used in the performance of them As if the Christians in the East did wear the bâ—dge of a Cross upon their Arms at some solemn days as on good Friday at their devotions to distinguish them from Turks and Iews would any one say that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Worship So that the distinction between these two is not so hard to find if men apply their minds to the consideration of it 2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution If men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual effects and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as expresly as it is possible that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable and that changes and alterations may be made as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremoâ—â— any parts of Divine Worship than these things dâ— And thus I have at once shewed what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church For Mr. A. saith An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship I answer 1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another is no part of Divine Worship at all much less a substantial part of it There are some visible signs from God to men representing the effects of his Grace to us and those we call Sacraments there are other signs from men to God to testifie their subjection and dependence and these are acts of Worship and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action and these are significant Ceremonies such as the Cross in Baptism is For after the Child is baptized and received into the Church the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. To whom is this token made Is it to God no certainly If it were a permanent sign of the Cross would it be for a Testimony to God or to Men When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified was this a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace as the Sacraments are It represents the Duty and not the Grace the Duty is ours and may be represented by us but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that because he alone is the Giver of it 2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God but of obligation on the person It is true that in the 30 Canon it is said that this Church retains the sign of the Cross following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof we must consider That Baptism is declared to be compleat before so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it nor being omitted takes nothing from it as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church This therefore is no part of the Baptismal Dedication And the Minister acts in a double capacity when he doth baptize and when he signs with the sign of the Cross when he baptizeth he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. Which being done and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism he then speaks in the name of the Church varying the number We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one do make use of this sign of the Cross as the Rite of Admission into the Church and of his obligation to behave himself as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense as no doubt it was so intended all the difficulties about a Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign concerning which some have made so great a stir will soon appear to be of no force For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Let us suppose an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe
among them the Pastour of the Church then baptizes him and immediately after upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant he saith in the name of the Church we receive thee into this Congregation and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us What harm is there in all this And yet is not this a Professing Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person Is it not therefore dedicating covenanting and sacramental as much as the sign of the Cross Why then should this be scrupled more than the other And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross and as God's Officer from him and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church as evidently appears by those words We receive him into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and then follows as the solemn rite of Admission And do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. All publick and solemn Admissions into Societies having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churchs Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull as a transient arbitrary professing sign yet not as a dedicating sign and as the common professing symbol of baptized Persons If it be lawfull in the former sense I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter Yes saith he the instituting of the latter belongs to God onely How doth that appear Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end True but not onely for that end but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men which none but God himself can doe and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution which is the onely possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament because it is a professing sign of Reverence then laying on the hand and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments because they are publick symbolical Rites But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onely to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects Yet I hope every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians And is not every Church-member bound to perform these That which is peculiar is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members i. e. makes it necessary to none else and to shew it to be onely a solemn Rite of Admission it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient we need not devise more and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency If it be lawfull the Church is to judge of the expediency and not every private person And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Well saith Mr. B. but it is unlawfull on another account viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship and so forbidden in the Second Commandment He may as well make it unlawfull to use Words in God's Worship for are not they Images and represent things to our minds as well as a transient sign of the Cross Nay doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God as he instanceth in a Crucifix or historical Image of Christ or some holy man If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose what out-cries of Popery had been made against us How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted to shew that they went no further and desired no more than this Yet the transient sign of the Cross without any respect to Worship is condemned among us as forbidden by the Second Commandment and that by the same person and in the same page But it is used as a medium in God's Worship Is our Worship directed to it or do we kneel before it as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God No all these are rejected by our Church How then is it a medium in God's Worship Why forsooth it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship What as much as kneeling before a Crucifix and yet that is lawfull according to him supposing the mind be onely excited by it Suppose then we onely use the sign of the Cross to excite mens consideration in the act of Worship what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground But our Church allows not so much onely taking it for a lawfull outward Ceremony which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship For Mr. B. saith in the same place there is a twofold medium in God's Worship 1. Medium excitans that raises our minds to Worship God as a Crucifix c. 2. Medium terminans or as he calls it terminus in genere causae finalis a worshipped medium or the terminus or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment viz. to worship a Creature with mind or body in the Act of Divine Worship as representing God or as the mediate term of our Worship by which we send it unto God as if it were more acceptable to him So
the party of the Church of Rome I judged quite otherwise of them they have particular Maxims and act by other interests But for those that have no tye to Rome it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extream as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith which all the Protestant World has so highly approved and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford and the great Iewell deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England And if it had not been as it were his work he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner The success that it has had ought to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate and it 's having triumphed over so many obstacles should make all the World acknowledge that God has declared himself in favour of it and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word to which in effect it owes its birth and original It is the same at present as it was when it was made and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time And how then can it be imagined that it has changed its use And can there be any thing more unjust than to say that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people for the consolation of so many good men for the salvation of so many believers is now become a destructive and pernicious thing If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent your Divine Service is so too for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry You adore nothing but God alone in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature And if there be some Ceremonies there which one shall not meet with in some other places this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity to put off all Charity not to know much what souls are worth not to understand the nature of things indifferent to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally that are willing to submit themselves unto them It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any For where has it been ever seen that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline and things that regard but the out-side and order of the Church and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth Can these things cause death and distill poyson into a soul Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths and as there is nothing but these that can save so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation For the Episcopal Government what is there in it that is dangerous and may reasonably alarm mens consciences And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory and shutting the Gates of Heaven who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government If it were contrary to the truth and the attainment of eternal happiness is it credible that God had so highly approved it and permitted his Church to be tyrannized over by it for so many Ages For who was it that did govern it Who was it that did make up its Councils as well General as particular Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted Was it not the Bishops And is it not to their wise conduct to which next under God his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was inveloped Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe In truth I think they might make the same use of this as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place but then his courage his zeal his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Hereticks that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it he would have to bear the name of Anastasia because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth and cleared it from the error that lay upon it and by his continual cares had caused it as it were to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection It is this too that the Bishops of England have done they saw not only one truth but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them than it was any where else The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design the enemies without and those within as terrible as they seem do not fright them they undertake this great work and do not leave it till they had brought it about and raised up the truth and placed it again upon the Throne in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection But if their Churches have not that title the thing it self belongs unto them and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these but lectures and praises of the pure truth Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it but to look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church Thus all the Protestants of France do those of Geneva those of Switzerland and German and those of Holland too for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort and shewed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England And from whence does it then come that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present and
divide rashly from her as they do Is not this to divide from all the antient Churches from all the Churches of the East from all the Protestant Churches which have alwayes had a very great respect for the purity of that of England Is it not horrible impudence to excommunicate her without mercy and to make themselves believe strangely of her for them to imagine that they are the only men in England nay in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and to hold the truths necessary to salvation as they ought to be held Indeed one might make a very odious Parallel betwixt these Teachers and Pope Victor that would needs excommunicate the Churches of Asia because they did not celebrate the Feast of Easter the same day they did at Rome Betwixt them and the Audeans that divided from the Christians and would not endure rich Bishops Betwixt them and the Donatists that would have no communion with them that had been ordained by lapsed Bishops and imagined that their Society was the true Church and the well beloved Spouse that fed her flock in the South Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved For my part as much inclined to Toleration as I am I cannot for all this perswade my self that it ought to be allowed to those that have so little of it for other men and who if they were Masters would certainly give but bad quarter to those that depended upon them I look upon these men as disturbers of the State and Church and who are doubtlesly animated by a Spirit of Sedition Nay I can scarce believe that they are just such as they say they are and I should be something afraid that very dangerous enemies might be hid under colour of these Teachers Societies composed of such persons would be extream dangerous and they could not be suffered without opening the Gate to disorder and advancing towards ones own ruine There are some of these that are composed of more reasonable men but I could wish they were reasonable enough not to separate from those of which the Church of England is composed Especially in the case we are in they should do all for a good agreement and in the present conjuncture of affairs they should understand that there is nothing but a good re-union that can prevent the evils with which England is threatned For to speak the truth I do not see that their Meetings are of any great use or that one may be more comforted there than in the Episcopal Churches When I was at London almost Five years ago I went to several of their private assemblies to see what way they took for the instruction of the people and the preaching of the Word of God But I profess I was not at all edified by it I heard one of the most famous Non-Conformists he preached in a place where there were three men and three or fourscore women he had chosen a Text about the building up the Ruines of Ierusalem and for the explication of it he cited Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times and did not forget to mention a Proverb in Italian Duro con duro non fa muro All this seem'd to me nothing to the purpose and very improper for the poor women and very far from a Spirit that sought nothing but the comfort and edification of his hearers To cantonize themselves and make a Schism to have the liberty to vent such vanities is very ill conduct and the people seem very weak to quit their mutual Assemblies for things that so little deserve their esteem and preference I do not think that any one is obliged to suffer this irregularity It is true that the Assemblies of the Novatians were sometimes suffered at Rome and Constantinople and that even the Donatists had some kind of liberty in the first of these places But they were only strangers and that neither did not indure any long time and as there were but few of them that is not to be drawn into example But it is another case in England and seeing the good of the State and Church depends absolutely upon the union of the people in the point of Religion one cannot there press an universal union too much But it ought to be procured by good means and since the Bishops are persons of great experience of an extraordinary knowledge of a true fatherly zeal and goodness towards their people I hope that they will employ themselves in this great work with all the prudence and charity that are necessary to the succeeding of such a commendable undertaking You particularly My Lord whose moderation and capacity are acknowledged by all the World it looks as if it were a design reserved for your great Wisdom and if you do not succeed it is clear that all others will labour in it but in vain For my part I can contribute nothing to it where I am but Vowes and Prayers and of these I can protest that I make very sincere ones every day for the prosperity of the English Church and that it would please God to order things in such manner that all the Protestants of England for the future might be of one heart and of one soul. I beg your Lordship to be well assured of this and to believe that it is impossible to be with more respect than I am Leyden Sept. 3. 1680. My Lord Your most Humble and most Obedient servant Le Moyne A Paris l' 32. d'Octob Monseigneur RIen ne vous a deu paroistre si estrange ny si incivil que mon silence sur la lettre que vous me fîstes l'honneur de m'escrire il y a environ trois mois Il est pourtant vray que je n'ay rien a me reprocher sur cela a fin que vous le croyiez comme moy vous voulez bien me permettre de vous dire comment la chose s'est passée Quand on m'apporta vostre lettre j'estois retombé dans une grande violente fiebvre dont Dieu m'a affligé durant quatre ou cinq mois qui m'a mené jusqu'a deux doits de la mort Ie priay un de mes amis qui estoit alors dans ma chambre de l'ouvrir de me dire le nom de celuy qui me l'escrivoit mais il se trouva que vous aviez oublié de la signer sur quoy je me l'a fis apporter pour voir si je n'en connoistrois point le caractére Et ce fut encore inutilement par ce que jusqu'alors je n' avois rien veu de vostre main Cela me fit croire qu'elle avoit esté escrite par celuy lá mesme qui l'avoit apportée pour m'attrapper dix ou douze sous de port car ce petit stratageme est assez commun en
c. p. 17. Giffard's Answer to the â—rownists p. 47. Grave Confutation c. p. 18. Acts. 8 12 19 31. Grave Confutation c. p. 51. 52. Giffard's Answer p. 59. 95 100 101 102. Grave Confutation c. p. 19. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson p. 65. Ed. 1642. Page 49. Stephen Offwooâ— 's Adveâ—tisement to Joâ—n Delecluse and H. May p. 10 39. Defence of the Admon to the Followers of Brown p. 127. Page 133. Page 135. Page 134. Page 140. Page 141. Pag. 138 c. Counterpoyson p. 25. Cotton's Answ. to R. Willâ—â—ms p. 122. Offwood's Advertisement p. 15. Cotton's Answer to R. Williams p. 17. Ib. Clifton's Advertisement p. 22. 26. Way of Congregational Churches cleared p. 6. Profane Schism of the Brownists p. 63. Ib. ch 2. p. 9. Page 71. Offwood's Advertisement p. 43. Schism of the Browniâ—s p. 87. Way of Congregational Churches p. 7. See Smith's Reasons in Bâ—nard against Brâ—â—nists caâ—led Pâ—ain Evidences p. 5 6 7. Smith's Ep. to the Character Cotton's Way cleareâ— p. 8. Page 15. Page 14. Page 138. R. Williams Answer to Cotton 's 〈◊〉 3â— Page 39. Page 43. Cotton's Answer to Williams p. 129 132. Apologet. Narrative p. 5 6. Anatomy of Independency p. 18 19 20 c. Answer to the Antapologia p. 245. Disswasive from the Errors of the Times p. 76 Anatomy of Independ p. 6. Anatomy of Independ p. 49. Duply to M. S. p. 53. Arguments of the Scotch Commiss p. 3 4. Serm. Nov. 8. 1641. Serm. before the Com. Feb. 19. 1645. Serm. before the Lord Mayor Jan. 14. 1645. Serm. before the Parliament Sept. 12. 1644. Observations and Annotations on the Apologetical Narration p. 17. Sermon at St. Paul's Feb. 8. 1645. p. 41. Narrative of New-England c. Postscript p. 52. Baylies Disswasive p. 104. Papers for Accommod p. 47. Baxter's Answer p. 89. Dr. O. p. 50. Mischief of Impos p. 58 68 69. â—etter out of the Country p. â—8 Answ. to my Sermon p. 21. Giffard's Answer to the Brownists p. 104. Barrow against Giffard p. 105. Page 70 72. Confut. of the Brown p. 51. Page 2â— Page 41. The Second Quaere Answer to Letter p. 22. Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 89. Answer to Serm. p. 99. Defence of the Cure of Divisions p. 55. Cassand Anglic. p. 2. Page 232 Vindication of Non conformists p. 8 9. Page 22. Answ. to Serm. p. 27. Defence of the Cure of Divisions p. 64. Restor of Sutton p. 15. Page 30. Mischief of Imposition Preface Iacob against Johnson p. 21 23 29 32 33 37 40 42 47 54 68 79 82. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson's Third Reason Sect. 2. Giffard against Brow p. 97 98 10â— Counterpoyson p. 9. 10 27 51 92. Letter out of the Country p. 34. Mischief of Imposition Preface Rector of Sutton c. p. 35. Answ. to Let. p. 24. Ans. to Letter p 17. Answer to Sermon p. 57. Cure of Divis p. 393. Sacrileg desertion p. 102. c. First Plea Sect. 9. p. â—41 Page 45. Answ. to Serm p. 49. Plea for Peace p. 47. Letter out of the Country c. p. 9. Dr. O. Vindication c. p. 35. Mischief of Impositions c. p. 36. Mischief of Impositions p. 65. Sacrileg de â—ertion p. 16. Defence of the Cure of Divis. Introd p. 50. Ibid. p. 170. Answ. p. 23. Dr. O. Vindicat p. 20 Christian Directory part 3. p. 739 741. Sacrileg desert p. 102 c. Cure of Divis p. 393. Answ. to my Letter p. 23. Apology of the Brownists n. 36. Chap. 13. Order of Congregational Churches n. 28. Irenic c. 22. Answ. to Letter p. 18. Sacrileg desert p. 86. Answ. p. 18. Answer to my Sermon p. 63. Sacrileg desert p. 34. True way of Concord Ch. 10. Answ. p 15 50. Plea for Peace p. 55. Brownisâ—s Apology Sect. 23. Mischief of Imposit Preface Dr. O's Vindic p. 36. Answ. p. 50. Plea for Peace p. 83. Cure of Divisions Direct 36. Sacrileg desert p. 10. Ball against Can p. 1 4 5 c. Pag. 15 42 56. Trial of New Church way p. 11. Christian Direct Part. 3. p. 747. Answ. p. 50. Cure of Divis p. 393. Answ. p. 54. Answ. p. 50. Plea for Peace p. 108. Sacrileg desert p. 43. Answer to Serm. p. 46. Plea for Peace p. 220. 223 226 339. Answ. to Sacril desertion p. 13. Answ. p. 19. Answ. p. 50. Answ. p. 4â— Answ. p. 54. Plea for Peace p. 55. Answ. p. 44. 1 Kings 2. 35. Mischief of Impos Preface Rector of Sutton c. p. 26. Plea p. 55. Answ. p. 9. Plea p. 81 82. Ibid. Answ. p. 49. Plea p. 82. Preface to Defence of his Cure p. 9. Plea p. 42. Answ. p. 61. Plea p. 42. Rector of Suâ—toâ— c. p. 25. Answ. p. 46. Mischief of Impos P. 48. Tract of Schism p. 3. Mischief of Impos p. 48 49. Mischief of Impos p. 53. Answ. p. 46. 60 87. Answ. p. 47. Answ. 15 52 53 84. Answ. p. 21. Answ. p. 64. Page 24. Page 62. Page 86. Mischief of Impos P. 85. Page 33. Page 51. Page 50. Mischief of Impos p. 84. Answ. p. 105. Rom. 12. 18. Mischief of Impos P. 39. Ibid. Plea p. 240. Mischief of Impos p 40. Answ. p. 64. Trial of Grounds of Separation Chap. 10. p. 791. Robinson's Treatise p. 11. Ainsworth's Consider examin'd p. 5. John 10 22 23. Matt. 23. 2. Luk. 24 53. Vindication of Non-conformâ—ts p. 25 30. Act. 16. 13. Phil. 1 27. 2. 2. Act. 15. 1. Rector of Sutton p. 15 16. Gal. 5. 2. Vindication of Non-conformists p. 26. Page 27. Page 28 Page 28 31. Act. 15 28. Page 7 8. Letter cut of the Country p. 24. Mischief of Imposit p. 6 7. De Baptismo â—c Donat l. 2. c 4 5. 〈…〉 Vindicat. p. 14. Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n. 9. Numb 10. Numb 11. Numb 13 14 15 16. Numb 18. Numb 19. Cap. 2. n. 1 2 3 4 5 6. Numb 9 10 11 12. Apology c. 3. Cap. 4. Cap. 5. Cap. 7. Cap. 8. Cap. 18. De secess ab Eccles. Rom. c p. 233. Prejuges legitimes contre les Calvinistes Claude sa Defence de la Reformation 8. part Pajon Examen du livre c. 3. partie Turretini disput 1. de necessariâ secessione ab Ecclesiâ Rom. Sect. 11. Le Blanc Theses de Reunione Praefat. ad Confess Helot art 17 27. Consens Polon p. 220. Confess August art 7. Confess Argent c. 14. Croc. de Eccâ—es unit Schism c. 6. â— 4. Comment de Aug. confess 9. c. 4. p. 33. c. 29. Page 435. Zanch. 1. de Reâ— p. 765. Amyrald de Secess ab Eccl. Rom. Deque pace cum Evangel constit p. 23. Hornbeck de Consociat Evang. Sect. 1. n. 3. Sencent D. Daven p. 5. Irenâ—c tract Pror p. 55. Vindication of Non-confâ—rmists p. 13. 36. Cyprian ad Anton. Ep. 52. n. 13. Euseb. l. 6. c. 45. Pacian Epist 3. ad Sempron Cyprian Epâ—st 51 52. 〈◊〉 unit Eccl de latsis Euseb. l. 6. c. 45. Theod. haeret
fab l 3. 5. Epiph. haer 59. Cyprian de Vnit. Eccl. n. 11 12 c. Epiph. haer 68. Theod. l. 1. c. 9. Epiph. haer 70. Sect. 15. Rector of Sutton c. p. 42. Cotton 's Answer to R. Williams p. 121. Mischief of Imposit in the Preface Aug. c. Ep. Parmen l. 1. c. 7. l. 2. c. 1 3 11. l. 3. c. 1. De bapt c. Donat. l. 2. c. Crescon l. 2. c. 14. Aug. Ep. 43. 51. Colâ— at 3. Carthag n. 258. Mischief of Imposiâ—ions in the Preface Collat. 3. Carthag n. 258. Aug 〈…〉 â—6 C. Parmen l. 1. c. 5. l. 2. c. 18. Cure of Divisions Direct 7. Defence of the Cure p. 3. Christian Direâ—tory p. 739 c. Mâ—schief of Impos Sect. 1. Christian Directory p. 741. Defence of his Cure 2 Except p 6. Heb. 10. 25. Act. 2. 42. 1 Cor. 10. 17. 1 Cor 12. 13. Ephes. 4. 3 4 5. Johâ— 17. 21. Iren. l. 4. c. 62. Chrysost in Eph. 4. p. â—22 1 Cor. 10. 6. 14. 1 St. John 5. Matt. 4. 19. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Heb. 13. 7. 17. 1 Thess. 5. 12. 13. Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8. Tit. 3. 10. 2 John 10. Revel 2. 6. 15. Aâ—t 15. 2. Phil. 3. 3. Rom. 14. 2 〈…〉 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Vers. 12. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 37. Serm. p. 26. Vindic p. 41. Cotton's way of Congregatiâ—nal Churches cleared p. 98 99. Cyprian l. 5. Ep. 2. in the late Edit Ep. 5. L. 4. 10. Ep. 35. L. 5. Ep. 3. Ep. 28. L. 3. Ep. 22. Ep. 24. Ep. 40. Euseb. l. 6. c. 35. Phot. Nomo-Can tit 1. c. 30. L. 3. Ep. 5. Ep. 15. L. 3. 15. Ep. 11. L. 3. Ep. 14. Ep. 10. L. 3. Ep. 15. Ep. 11. L. 3. Ep. 10. Ep. 12. Ep. 21. Ep. 22. Ep. 25. Ep. 26. Ep. 28. Ep. 30. Ep. 31. Ep. 33. Ep. 34. Ep. 35. Ep. 38. Ep. 39. Ep. 27. Ep. 52. Ep. 55. Ep. 65. Ep. 69. Ep. 75. Moses and Aaron p. 62. Vindic. p. 39. Act. 9. 31. 1 Thess. 2. 14. 1 Cor. 16. 19. Act. 15. 41. 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 8. 1. Act. 20. 19. 31. 1 Cor. 16. 9. Vindic. p. 40. p. 4â— Orig. c. Cels. l. 3. Act. 18. 11. Act. 20. 31. Sâ—t l. 8. Thucyd. l. 4. l. 8. p. 41. Act. 4. 4. Sâ—â— l. 9. Eustar ad Il. â— Euseb. l. 3. c. 5. Epiph. haer 29. p. 42. Evangel Love p. 59. p. 65. p. 43. p. 44. Reasons against the Instances c. p. 83. p. 46. p. 24. True and onely way of Concord p III. Premonition to the true way of Concord Plea for peace p. 66. Church-History p. 37. p. 73. Church-History p. 57. Answ. to Serm. p. 74. Aug. de Bapt. l. 2. c. 4. Cypt. Ep. 52. n. 4. Cypr. Ep. 55. n. 6 9. Ep. 46. n. 3. Ep. 58. n. 2. De Vnit. Eccl. n. 3 4. S. August Ep. 162. N. E. Ep. 43. Collat. Carthage 1. Aug. Ep. 43. Victor Vitens l. 1. a Aug. Serm. 4. 14. 102. de diversis b Serm. 12. 122. de diversis c De divers 11. d 96. de Temp. * Vict. l. 1. f 110. de Temp. g 251. de Temp. h 24. de divers Victor Vit. l. 5. Collat. 1. Carthage n. 139. Optat. l. 6. Cod. Eccl. Afric c. 71. c. 98 99. c. 117. c. 118. c. 121. Church History p. 73. De Curd pro Mortuis c. 12. Aug. Ep. 60. Aug. Ep. 203. Ep. 204. Ep. 262. Ep. ad Quodvultdeum ante lib. de haeres S. Cyprian Ep. 52. n. 13. Ep. 23. n. 2. Ep. 45. n. 2. Victor Vit. l. 1. Epiph. haer 68. n. 6. Athanas. Ap. p. 781. 802. Haeres 68. n. 4. 69. n. 1. Abridgment of Chur. hist. p. 9. Athanas. Ap. p. 682. Euseb. l. 7. c. 21. Vetus Orbis descript p. 18. Amm. Marc. l. 22. Euseb. l. 7. c. 11. Athan. Apol. p. 683. Theodor. Ep. 113. Treatise of Episcopacy p. 67. Critic Sacr. l. 4. c. 21. Theod. Ep. 116. Ep. 117. Sirmond Praef. ad Theod. Opera Ptolem. l. 5. c. 15. Strab. l. 16. Plin. l. 5. c. 24. Amm. Marcel l. 14. Notitiae Antiq Append. ad Car. à S. Paulo p. 59. Theodor. Ep. 16. Theodor. Ep. 79 81. Ep. 42. Ep. 72. Religios Hist. Vit. Symeon p. 879. Ep. 81. Ep. 145. Vita Jacobi jun. p. 860. 861 c. 858 869 876 877 878 879. Treatise of Episcopacy part 2. p 49 50. Theod. Hist. l. 4. c. 19. l. 4. c. 15. l. 4. c. 19. l. 4. c. 21. l. 4. c. 2 l. 5. c. 4. Answ. to Serm. p. 73. p. 263. Christian Directory Eccles. Cases Q. 56. p. 831. Can. 31. 35. Defence of the Answer to the Admonit p. 218. p. 424. p. 427. Perpetual Government of Christ's Church ch 12. p. 224. ch 13 p. 244. Synod of New-England concerning the subject of Baptism c. 1662. Baxter of Confirmation p. 20. p. 49 52. p. 155. p. 172. p. 262. Rubrick before Communion Defence of the Plea p. 58. Epist. 108. Post collat c. Donat. c. 20. Spalat l. 5. c. 9. Albaspin l. 2. c. 4. Defence of the Plea p. 65 72. De Tâ—mpâ—re Serm. â—52 Of Confirmation p. 174 c. His Majesties final Answer to the Divines at Newport n. 4. Calvin Ep. 136. Bez. Ep. 20. Codex Eccles Afric c. 6 7 9 43. c. 10. c. 11. p. 5. p. 9. Plea for Peace p. 243. Answ. 10 Serm. Socr. l. 5. c. 19. Soz. l. 7. c. 16. Serm. p. 19. Vindicat. of Non-conform p. 16. p. 17. p. 17. p. 42. Williams his Answer to Cotton's Letter p. 1. Cottons Answer to R Williams p. 57. 〈…〉 p. 46. Cobbet's Answer to Claâ—ks Nâ—rrative p. 40 47. Synod of New-England p. 30. Defence of the Synod p. 1â—2 Answ. p. 31 32. Difference between the Power of the Magistrates and Church Pastâ—â—rs 1â—â—1 p. 〈◊〉 40. 〈…〉 〈…〉 p. 12 13 14. Hudson of the Church p. 15. Can. 139. Christian Directory Eccl. Cases Q. 5â— p. 830. Answer to my Sermon p. 77. Anws p 34. p. 39. Mischief of Impos p. 27. ibid. p. 29. p. 30. p. 31. Letter out of the country p. 24. p. 25. p. 26. Part 2. Rectâ—r of Sutton c. p. 2â— Vindication c. p. 3â— Answ. p. 15 16. Mischief of 〈◊〉 Preface Letter out of the Country p. 25. Vindicat. p. 37. 1 Tim. 3. 2 7 10. Act. l. 14. Act. 6. 3 5. Act. 11. 3. Act. 15. 2. 6. 12. 16. 4. 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Act. 1â— 2. Act. 6. 3. Clement Epist. p. 54 55 56 57. Answ. p. 27. Cypr. Epist. 68. Orig. hom 6. in Levit. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 59. Greg. Naz. Orat. 19. Evagr. l. 2. c. 5. Socr. l. 4. c. 14. Soz. l. 3. c. 5. Socr. l. 7. c. 26 35. Ambros. Ep. 82. Socr. l. 4. c. 30. Soz. l. 4. c. 28. Socr. l. 5. c. 9. l. 6. c. 11. Amm. Marc. l. 27. Answ. p. 15. De Sacerd. l. 3. Hieron adversus Iovin in Ezek. c. 33. Orig in Num. hom 22. Hieron Epist.