Liberty of captivating their Vnderstanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free Passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by God's Blessing that universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Vnity This Citation being to long I shall add but one more out of him and that a shorter p. 209. This is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Vnity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion Last of all I close with your Rational Account p. 291. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in Justice make the necessary Conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare Men Christians ought to capacitate them for Communion with Christians Even an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the indispensible Rule of Faith and Manners Which be pleased to note is something different from your late establish'd Rule Now would you fix here that those things which declare Men Christians shall suffice to capacitate them for Communion with you how many Mens Scruples would be removed and what better way can you think of to put a stop to Separation 7. Are you Impartial in charging all Nonconformist's Meetings with Separation tho very many of them ordinarily join with the Parochial Congregations and do not deny them â—o be true Churches as the old Separatists did p. 56. It is true say you in that Opinion they differ but in Separation they agree As in your Sermon p. 33. For do they not do the very same things and in the same manner that the others do how comes it then to be Separation in some and not in others Which I answered Rector of Sutton p. 49. thus What they do is not done upon the Separatists Principles and therefore not done in the same manner Yet you neither retract that Saying of yours nor refute my Answer And have not others as much reason to object against you that when you receive the Sacrament kâ—eeling you do the same thing that the Papists and Lutherans do I do not think it manifestly appears from the Pope's manner of receiving either sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as you say p. 15. that the Papists are allowed to follow him herein How then comes that to be an Act of Worship in them when with you it is no Act of Worship but a â—eer indifferent Ceremony 8. Are you not very Partial in loading those that do not absolutely separate from you but only secundum quid as you do p. 54 55 56. Making their Practice that own you to be true Churches to be the more unjustifiable more inexcusable more unreasonable Separation Is it not a greater Schism to separate from you as no true Church than to do it only because you are faulty in imposing such Conditions as they cannot lawfully submit to Are they the greatest Separatists who hold Communion with you so far as they can I should think they are the greatest Separatists whose Separation is the most unjustifiable inexcusable and unreasonable As I had thought there was not so much reason to deny the Being of the Church of England while she retaineth the true Faith and hath the true Worship of God for substance as there may be to doubt of the lawfulness of Ceremonies and Modes of Worship invented and imposed without any clear Scripture-Warrant And suppose one dares not receive the Communion with you because he holdeth kneeling in that Act a participating with Idolaters and another is kept off because he suspects there may be some Superstition in it will you say the latter is the more unreasonable And do you not own those Lutheran Churches that have Exorcism with Baptism yet to be true Churches And if you was placed there must you therefore own and use Exorcism tho against your Judgment or be guilty of a more inexcusable unreasonable Separation from them than the Papists who deny them to be true Churches 9. Are you Impartial in allowing a different way of Worship to the Members of Forreign Churches here in England as p. 147 148. while you are against allowing the like Liberty to Natives which you deny not to Strangers Bishop Davenant Ad pacem Eccl. Adhort p. 116. Rat. 3. argues That none ought to deal more hardly with their Christian Brethren of other Churches than with their own Rom. 12. 5. Nam fraâ—â—rnitâ—s Christiana quae Intercedit inter membra Christi non variatur pro locorum aut nationum varietate You would have your own more hardly dealt with than those of forreign Churches Now what Equity is here Either you have Communion with those of Forreign Churches not withstanding their different way of Worship or you have not If you have no Communion with them then are you not Schismaticks from those Churches If you have Communion with them why may you not as lawfully have Communion with Nonconformists in their way of Worship Can you assign any just and sufficient Cause ex Natura rei why such a way of Worship should not be allowed 10. Do you deal Impartially while you complain p. 112. that no bounds are set to the Peoples Fancies of purer Administrations concerning which I am quite mistaken if I did not wish the Rector of Sutton had cautioned what he said and you on the other hand set no Bounds but by your excepting against what Mr. B. hath written of it would have People own and commit the care of their Souls to such Ministers as are in place be they never so profane insufficient or unsound Tho Mr. Cheyney Full Answer c. Introduct p. 7. grants That where God doth make a difference Men may Now God doth make a difference says he between the Ministry of the best and the worst between the Ministry of a John Baptist and a Pharisee a living Man and an Image P. 177. Say you And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches c. Where you suppose every Parochial Church in England to be a true Church and every Parochial Minister by consequence to be a true Minister unless you would argue fallaciously there Tho I had thought it possible to have found out some few at least whom you would have been ashamed to own I cannot but wonder at that you urge again and again p. 111. Were they not baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it p. 148. Our Business is with those who being baptized in this Church c. May not all those that were baptized in Presbyterian or Independent Congregations as well plead their Baptism for their continuing in that way of Worship which was in the
teach not Heresy nor preach down Holiness c. and deny us not their Communion unless we will sin or a Conformists that will hold Communion with none but his own Party but separates from all other Churches in the Land Ib. p. 41. Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church and their Communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies as unlawful to be communicated with when it is not so If the former then will it not follow that condemning them as no Church is a Diminution or no Aggravation of Separation and the local presence of an Infidel or Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of their Friends If the latter which is certain then will it not follow that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn they are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them declaring it unlawful Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47 or 49. Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church when it is upon unwarrantable Cause or Reasons Ib. p. 31. Now how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them while they generally refuse shun and condemn our Assemblies Are there no true Churches to be found in the World that have no Bishops of a superior order over Pastors And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism and Separation from those true Churches which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers and Invaders of other Mens Rights Vid. Sacril Desert p. 60. Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species whether have any Authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts change Christ's Laws or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches Way of Concord p. 111. § 14. Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons which causlessly silence Ministers scatter Flocks and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful or unnecessary ill-made Terms of Communion ibid. third Part p. 13. § 43. And if any proud passionate or erroneous Person do as Diothrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications whether this be not tyrannical Schism First Plea c p. 41. And as we say of the Papists that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication may we not say so of any others especially if either for that which is a Duty or for some small mistake which is not in the Persons power to rectify no greater than most good Christians are guilty of their Church-Law says he shall be excommunicate ipso facto ibid. p. 104. See also Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47. or 49. § 8. Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin whether this be not heinous Schism First Plea c. p. 41 42. Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justify and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Ib. Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible or shall make Churches so great or Pastors so few as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight Teaching and publick Worship and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other that would be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances true Church-Communion and Pastoral Help whether this would not be Schismatical and much worse Ib. p. 44. Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully sâ—t over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causlessly and without Right silence them and command the People to desert them and to take to others for their Pastors in their stead oâ— whom they have no such knowledg as may encourage them to such a change Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no Bishop because another was rightful Bishop before â— Ib. p. 49 50. Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not 1. To approve the best 2. To tolerate the tolerable 3. To have Sacraments free and not forced 4. To restrain the Intolerable 5. This to be the Test of Toleration Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt in true impartial Judgment 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace Way of Concord third Part p. 144. Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest to divide his Subjects and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them and to keep them in such Divisions seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love and willing Obedience and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused Party which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest who are as wise and just and loyal as they Second Plea c. p. 76. § 24. Si in necessariis sit Vnitas In Non-necessariis Libertas In uâ—risque Charitas Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae To make a rounder number I may add from Mr. M. Godwyn his Negro's and Indians Advocate pleading for the Instructing of them and so admitting them into the Church a Book lately Printed and Dedicated to the Arch Bishoâ— of Canterbury Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it as he says in the Title-Page no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion as he says p. 91. Are all professed Christians absolutely bounâ— in their Places to endeavour the same by their Vow in Baptism and their very Profession Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion as well at home as abroad And do they not owe as much Service herein for Christ's sake towards their own Country-men as towards Strangers Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men as for Indians And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England Atheism Ignorance Error Profaneness Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us is he for any great Advancement of Religion that would send away all Non-conformists if there be thousands of them to his Negro's and Indians for this wise Reason that There is no want of their Labours at home FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London by the Author on the latter end of February or beginning of March last but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets they could not get through the Press sooner The Ingenuous Reader is â—â—so desired to pass by the Errata the Author being remote from the Press these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen viz. ERRATA PAge 5. l. 6 r. above P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele down P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater P. 63. l. 24. r. Church P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia P. 72. l. 19 20. r. betray P. 81. l. 35. r. for P. 83. l. 36 r. did he at all
limiting and inclosing the Catholick Church and if any disturb the Peace of this Church and here you do not 〈◊〉 the most peaceable Dissenters that only meet for the Worship of God and separate no farther from your Church than as it is not Catholick you go on The Civil Magistrate may justly inflict Civil Penalties upon them for it Is this your Mind that all that submit not tâ— those new federal Rites as they are supposed and teaching Signs and Symbols spoken of should be both debarred of Church-Priviledges and laid under Civil Penalties as disturbers of thâ— Churches Pâ—ace Then I cannot but wish that Governours may have more Moderation and Clemency or poor Dissenters more Faith and Patience than you shew Christian Charity herein But if they are as near the Primitive Church and as much in Communion with the Catholick Church as you are yea and in Communion with you still so sar as you are Catholick what great reason can you have so severely to condemn them I hope the Doctrine of the Non-conformists generally is sound their Worship agreeable to the Word The only Question then remaining seems to be By what Authority they do these things And who gave them Authority Now it is true they cannot pretend Authority from the Bishops but if they can prove they have Authority from Christ is not that sufficient If he hath called them to the work of the Ministry and commandeth them to be diligent and faithful in it according to their Abilities and Opportunities me thâ—nks Men should not deny their Authority And whether may not such Societies as you call nâ—w Churches return what you cite p. 179 180. out of Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n 9. as proving them to be true Churches They having the Word of God truly preached and Sacraments administred accâ—rding to Christ's Institution Now he saith as you have him where ever thâ—se Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to Humane Conveniences And therefore if you did not look only on one side you might probably see that you are no more allowed wilfully to separate from them than they are from you And as that Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared as you have it p. 186. That there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own Opinions or Practices So why might not the Non-conformists and their Hearers be taken into or acknowledged in Communion with the Church of England without renouncing their Opinions or Practices they being certainly as far from Idolatry or Superstition as any of the Lutheran Churches As the Helvetian Churches with you p. 187 declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him Even so because the Non-Conformists consent with you in Doctrine do not break them off from your Communion for their difference about Ceremonies May not several Churches differ in Modes and Forms of Worship and yet have Communion with one another Some Difference you cannot but grant betwixt your Cathedral Service and that in common Country Churches p. 146 147. You will not say the Churches in other Nations that have not the same Rule with you are Schismaticks No not though such came over into England and lived among you And what if the old Liturgy and that new one which you cannot but remember the compiling of and presenting to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used different Modes of Worship without Breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks Would you have called those new separate Churches that made use of the new reformed Liturgy And what if a Dutch Church was in your Parish Would you disclaim Communion with them because they had some Rules and Orders different from yours And what if divers of your Parish living near it should joyn with that Congregation would you thence conclude that they erected a new separate Church And as the Canon 1640. speaks of bowing towards the East or Altar That they which use this Rite should not despise them which use it not c. if now our King and Parliament like true Catholick Moderators should put forth an Henoticum make an healing Law enjoyning Conformists and Non-conformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for Substance to attend peacably on their Ministery and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Liturgy and Ceremonies or no without uncharitable Censures and bitter Reflections upon one another either in Word or Writing would you yet say that the Non-conformists Assemblies not following your Rules and Orders were no other than new separate Churches 5. I know no Laws nor Ecclesiastical Canons that the present Non-conformists have made And non-entis nulla sunt praedicata But if your meaning be that it is enough to prove them New Churches that they come not up to your Laws and Church-Rules and therefore are so 〈…〉 as they conform not to you I would argue thus Either Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary to Communion with the Church of England and to cut off the charge of being of a New â—hurch or not If Conformity in all things be not necessary here why may not sober Dissenters that own the Church of England for a true Church and profess the same Faith and worship God in no other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England as you say p. 160. Mr. B. declared in writing and as I told you a good Lawyer pleadeth Rector of Sutton p. 26 50. I say why may not such be owned as in Communion with the Church of England Why do you charge them with erecting new separate Churches meerly because they differ from you in some alterable Circumstances and separable Accidents not necessary to Churches Concord and Communion I see you dare not say that those things wherein they differ from you are any parts of Worship So they are of the same Faith and agree with you in all parts of Worship And is not all this with their owning themselves to be be of the Church of England so far as it is Catholick a bidding fair for your Reception of them and acknowledging them still in Communion with you And then why have you so many words of such being no good Christians because Members of no Church as pag. 104 105 110. f. If Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be not necessary pray tell us what is necessary and what not what things may be dispensed with and what not Rector of
it concerns not me to descant on the whole but especially to enquire and observe whether it be not as I said Or as Calvin wrote to Dr. Cox and his Brethren Ep. 165. as you have it not far from the beginning of your Book p. 12. That the state of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him write with greater sharâ—â—â—ess than otherwise he would have done I think we shall see it plain That either they had not the true state of our Case laid before them or if they had then they wrote very much besides it I suppose their Letters here faithfully translated The First Letter is from Monsieur Le Moyne THo I find a Letter of the same Persons formerly published wherein it is said he thought himself abused sundry Passages in his Letter moderating and regulating the Episcopal Power being left out Bâ—â—as Vapul p. 80 81. Yet I must not suppose any such thing here unless I could prove it But from what is here published P. 404. I could not have persuaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a Man could not be of her Communion without hazarding his own Salvation 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 And p. 408. Is it not horrible Impudence to excommunicate her without Mercy for them to imagine that they are the only Men in England that hold the Truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held From hence is it not plain now that either he understood not the matter of difference betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists or else did here forget it Had M. Le Moyne consulted and perused your Sermon which possibly was the Occasion of those Writings that M. de L' Angle seems to condemn unseen p. 420 423. had he only read what you say p. 21. I will not make the Difference wider than it is 1. They unanimously confess they find no Fault with the Doctrine of our Church and can freely subscribe to all the Doctrinal Articles Well then the case is vastly different as to their Separation from us and our Separation from the Church of Rome 2. They generally yield That our Parochial Churches are true Churches They do not deny That we have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments 3. Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful Or had he seen what you write here p. 95. how all your Answerers agree with you in the Doctrine of the Church of England and as Dr. Owen says we are firmly united with you in Confession of the same Faith had these things been in his Eye surely he could not have written at this Rate as if we thought we were the only Men in England that held the Truths necessary to Salvation So I leave you your self to judg whether M. Le Moyne goes not upon a great Mistake Sure I am that either he or you have greatly misrepresented us as every ordinary Capacity by comparing what I have here set down may readily discern If what he says of us here be true what you say must needs be false Now I do the more willingly appeal to your Iudgment here touching these things whereof we are accused because I know you are expert in the Questions that are amongst us Say then Whether ever any such Controversie arose betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists Let me hear of one Non-conformist that ever asserted That a Man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England or that no Conformist could be saved Yet this learned Professor would have them all to be such As is too plain from that very odious Parallel which he says p. 408. One might make betwixt them and the Donatists 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 As for his comparing them with Popâ— Victor some will smile at it as more fitly agreeing to others that are for excomunicating Christians for meer Non-conformity in matters of Ceremonies And no better will the Comparison hold betwixt them and the Audeans or Anthropomorphites as whosoever reads what Antiquity says of them may perceive If they were against rich Bishops that is not to the Point If our Bishops would be content with their Riches and quit their claim of Divine Right till it can be proved or not require our Acknowledgment of it before we believe it nor impose such things on us as we are sure and can prove from what they wrote the Apostles would never have imposed whose Successors they pretend to be then I doubt not we could accord with them So that here also he shoots wide And thus alas by overdoing he hath hitherto done just nothing for you I know Sir that you to whose Iudgment I here appeal must needs acquit us from that Vncharitableness we are here charged with Or we are not the Men he speaks of we are not arrived to that horrible Impudence to excommunicate all of your Communion without Mercy We are not like the Donatists or those of the Roman Communion not as here we are represented And so if Dr. Potter's word â—ay be taken we are to be cleared and acquitted from the charge of Schisâ—â— As he says Answer to Charity mistaken Sect. 3. p. 75. printed at Oxford 1633. This clears us from the Imputation of Schism whose Property it is witness the Donatists and Lucifâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Can you find any such Separatists amongst those who yâ—t remain firmly united to you in the Confession of the same Faith We differ only as I said Rector of Sutton p. 31. as to certain external accidental Forms Modes and Rites which the Church of England cannot say are necessary and appear to us as things at least to be suspected and yet they are obtruded and imposed with as much Rigor and Strictness as if they were most highly necessary We doubt not yet but there are sober and truly pious Conformists whose Consciences do not scruple the Lawfulness of these things But here I would say as Dr. Potter ibid p. 76. To him who in simplicity of heart believes them to be lawful and pracfiseth them and withal feareth God and worketh Righteousness to him they shall prove Venial Such a one shall by the Mercy of God either be delivered from them or saved with them But he that against Faith and Conscience shall go along with the Stream to profess and practise them because they are but little Onâ—s his Case is dangerous and witout Repentance desperate So though the learned Professor compares the present Dissenters because he knows them not with the Donatists I may here borrow an Expression of
Judgment and the Untruth of what they have believed of us ibid. p. 85. And whether we may not suppose that Satan is afraid of their Ministry who hath stirred up so much Opposition against it Sacril Desert p. 84. Q. 64. Whether Popery will come in ever the more for Non-conformist's Preaching Whether such will preach for or against it Or ever the â—ss if they renounce their Ministry ibid. p. 82. Whether they that cry out of the danger of Popery Infidelity Prophaness and Heresies and yet had rather let them all in then give us leave to exercise that Ministry to which we were consecrated in Poverty and Subjection and while they cry out of Divisions will not lay by the dividing Engines should rather accuse us or themselves if the Evils overwhelm us which they seem to fear ibid. p. 137 138. Q. 65. When any are unjustly cast out of their Parish-Churches whether all Ministers are thereupon obliged or allowed to desert or neglect them ib. p. 21. Q. 66. If a Patient would not take a Medicine from one Mans hand whether would not the Physician consent that another should give it him Whether would the Father let the Infant famish if it would take Food from none but its Mother And whether would there be need of the best Conformists as Ministers if the People had no Faults or Weaknesses ibid. p. 125 126. What if they culpably would hear no other Is it better to let them hear none at all than that we preach to them Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 59. or 61. Q. 67. Whether it be not one thing to deny total Communion with a Church and another to separate but secundum quid for some Act or Part Whether it be not one thing to separate locally by bodily Absence and another mentally by Schismatical Principles Whether it be not one thing to depart wilfully and another to be unwillingly cast out Whether it be not one thing to depart rashly and in hast and another to depart after due Patience when Reformation appears hopeless First Plea c. p. 38 39. Q. 68. When the publick Good requires Non-conformists to hold distinct Assemblies for Assistance in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as near as they can according to the Will of God to further not to disgrace or hinder the honest Parish-ministers whether are these separate Churches any more than Chappels be Or distinct Churches more than secundum quid holding personal Communion in a godly Conversation with the rest of the Christians in the Parish and also sometimes assembling with them Sacril Desert p. 22 23. Or whether those that do their best to keep up the Reputation of the publick conformable Ministry to further Love and Concord and the success of their Labours with the People and profess to take their own Assemblies but as Chappels and not as distinct much less as separated Churches yea and those who do administer Sacraments and do that which is like the Separatist's Way yet do it not on their Principles but pro tempore till God shall give them Opportunity to serve him in the established Way it being reformed or well-ordered Parish-Churches under the Government and Countenance of the Christian Magistrates which are most agreeable to their Desires whether such I say are justly accounted Separatists First Plea c. p. 246. Q. 69. Whether we may not set up other Churches when we are necessarily kept from those established by publick Power Ib. p. 77. Q. 70. Whether it be Schism to preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and Will of Heathen Mahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it as the Christians did for 300 Years And if there be the same Cause and Need whether it be any more Schism to do it against the Laws and Will of a Christian Prince For 1. Are not Christ's Laws equally obligatory 2. Are not Souls equally precious 3. Is not the Gospel and God's Worship equally necessary 4. And doth his Christianity enable him to do more Hurt than a Pagan may do or more Good Ibid. p. 51 52. Q. 71. If Competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom and the other half hath incompetent Men or if nine Parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied and but the tenth Part had not such set over them to whom the People may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their Souls whether is it Schism or whether is it not a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best Supply they can And whether is it Schism or whether is it not a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiours to perform their Office to such People that desire it Ibid. p. 83. If the Magistrate appoint 20000 or 10000 or one half of a Parish to be excluded for want of Room and Teachers is it not ill supposed that the Gospel is truly and sufficiently preached to them to whom it is not preached at all Or doth it prove it not necessary to them that it is preached to others Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 22. And whether is not the general Ordination of Ministers with the Peoples Necessity and Consent added to God's general Commands to all his Ministers to be faithful and diligent a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration without the Will of prohibiting Superiours yea against it And otherwise doth it not follow that it is at the Will of a Man whether Souls shall be saved or damned for how shall they believe unless they hear And how shall they hear without a Preacher and at the Will of Man whether Christ shall have a Church and God be publickly worshipped or not First Plea c. p. 48. And whether doth not the indispensible Law of Nature oblige every Man according to his Place and Calling his Ability and Opportunities to do his best to propagate Christ's Gospel and to save Mens Souls as much and more than to feed Mens Bodies and save their Lives And whether are not Ministers specially obliged to do it by their Calling as Ministers of Christ thereto devoted Ibid. Q. 72. There being so many sorts of Churches in the World as Universal National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Diocesan Classical Parochial Congregational whether must it not be hard to give a just Decision of the Question From which of these and when it is a Sin to separate till it be first known which of those is of Divine and which of Humane Institution and which Humane Churches are necessary which Lawful and which Sinful ibid. p. 7. How is it proved and how cometh it to be any great matter to separate from a Church-â—orm which God never made Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 33. Q. 73. Whether they that say those Species National Patriarchal Provincial Diocesan are of God must not prove that God instituted them in Scripture or else that he gave some Men power to institute them since Scripture-times And till the same be proved
whether are any bound to obey them at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions Way of Concord p. 111. § 15. And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority and impose them on the World in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks be not a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies ibid. § 16. Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship be not a Church Form of Divine Institution First Plea c. p. 8. And whether any Proof hath ever been produced that many Churches of this first Rank must of Duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association as Diocesan National c. and that God hath instituted any such Form Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions ib. p. 12 13. Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a political Sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the Power of teaching them ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-keys and leading them in publick Worship ibid. p. 13. And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less of many scores or hundreds such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or Bishop of Bishops had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion and mutual Assistance at due Seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes whose Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their Conversation and as a single Congregation may prudently in Persecution or foul Weather meet oft-times in several Houses so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses when they had no Temples and yet be capable of personal Communion as before described ibid. p. 13 14. And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith The Church of the Living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ c. doth he not here suppose as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino when they become but parts of a Bishops Church And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church ibid. p. 5 6. And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it as certain that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place ibid. p. 17. And see Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 75. or 69. Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved that God hath instituted any other than Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion whether must it not follow that none of the rest instituted by Man have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit or disoblige them from any of this Duty by just Authority Way of Concord p. 111. § 13. Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province into one only Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys or all essential to their Office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince First Plea c. p. 52. Or whether hath God made such proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws or whether God should be worshipped and Souls saved or his own Institution of Churches be observed Ibid. p. 53. Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches and Inferiour Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or Consent of the People or inferiour Pastors and these Bishops shall by Laws or Mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws or Mandates as such ibid. p. 80. Bishop Bilson of Subject p. 399. grants The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor ibid. p. 79. And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence and so a Duty to consent yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches till they do consent ibid. p. 80. Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God And doth not Dr. Blondel de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl. beyond Exception prove it with more ib. p. 81. Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command as such Or whether is it Schism to disobey it ibid. p. 82. Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses That he who separateth from a Parish-Church separates from no Church Sacril Desert p. 24. Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks if we renounced Communion with all other Churches except Parochial and Conformists And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism Whether ouâ—s that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us that
hearing of Sermons c and that frequently too to be lawful Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters pag. 98. No Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in Affront to them and the Laws Here you say in Effect that let Parishes be never so large and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable nor to be encouraged because not under you establish'd Rule But either you must grant it may be lawful to joyn occasionally and that frequently too with the Non-conformists or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers and say that it was better for Men to hear these than such as Mr. B. c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists lest any should thence argue from your own Words that constant Communion with them is a Duty I am thinking however that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship And let them alone to make their best of what you say you are sure will follow p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what Denomination soever the Persons pass Because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily though but in some parts of their Worship at first its possible they would gain far more Proselites by it than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo p. 156. 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 As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church Yet you will look upon your self not only as a Member of the Church of England but as a Member of the Catholick Church And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church it may possibly sometimes fall out that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church or a French Church And if Non-conformists with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick as others you can freely have Communion with and while they differ from you in nothing but if the same was removed your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them and then for ought I know you may be obliged thereunto it may be a Duty Because you wholly overlook this I thought fit to take notice of it And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments pag. 157. viz. 1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church And here I ask If there be not as great an Obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace or promote it with all Christians as with all Men And they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donatiâ—â— which you cannot in reason suppose yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says Miscel. of Schism p. 208. Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists if occasion so require And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break why may not I be present in them and use Communication with them 2 The particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. And one would think such as have attained so much Knowledg as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of Wâ—â—ship might know it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformiâ—ts 5. Are you not partial when you lay this down p. 157. As 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 c. yet you tell us not what things those are neither the time when they were pressed thereunto and refused the same And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace that were reasonable made to them which they refused But you never take notice of it as any provoking Sin in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many And might not so much have been expected from them as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace May I not here return your own Words pag. 159. Was ever Schisâ—â— made so light a matter of and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate that for the Prevention of the one and the Preserevation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done Or as I would say that the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own Judgment but things doubtful or unlawful in the Judgment of others might not be forborn Now Sir are you for palliating so great Sin as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church when you know The Obligation which lieth upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church which you give us again p. 209. And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account p 324 Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent Dissenting Protestants say we The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and redress of Abuses And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship That the Church of England is not such a Shreâ— to hâ—r Children as to deny her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation c. Where I observe
that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful Things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms if the Thing so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Which with more you have in that Page and the Page before it cuts off your third Particular Preface p. 75. Here now I have gained so much Ground of you Such are necessitated to withdraw from your Communion who must otherwise joyn in some unlawful or suspected Practice As Chillingworth p. 269. To do ill that you may do well is against the Will of God which to every good Man is a high Degree of Necessity And say you Rational Account p. 290. Can any one imagine it should be a Fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an Obligation to the contrary from the Principles of their common Christianity Here I assume they are bound by the Principles of common Chrisianity to keep off from Communion with you that know they should certainly sin if they held Communion with you because they should then joyn in suspected â—ractices and things which after Enquiry their Consciences tell them are unlawful Ergo you must say it cannot be a Fault in such to keep off from Communion with you Though I would grant them faulty so far as any keep off through Prejudice Error Ignorance yet so far as these are involuntary they are more excusable than to go directly cross to their own Consciences here So therefore such are necessitated to withdraw Communion from you who would certainly sin if they held Communion with you judging such Communion to be sinful 2. If you say here What is this to a positive Separation which is the present Business You shall see it is something towards it You are come a fair Step on the Way Once grant that it is lawful for Men or that Men are necessitated to deny Communion with you in unlawful or but suspected Practices which are unlawful to them and you come presently to the Point Allowing them to withdraw from yours you must allow them to joyn in some other Christian Assembly unless you would have them utterly deprived of the Worship of God and to live like Heathens As you say well Irenic p. 109. Every Christian is under an Obligation to joyn in Church society with others because it is his Duty to profess himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without Society with some Church or other So then Christians that cannot enjoy Sacraments with you must joyn with some other Society where they may enjoy them And further take notice of that remarkable Assertion in your Rational Account p. 335. and apply it here as far as there is Cause Our Assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by forcing Men N. B. if they would not damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences in approving the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together N. B. for the solemn Worship of God according to the Rule of Scripture and Practice of the Primitive Church and suspending I suppose it should have been and to suspend Communion with that Church till those Abuses and Corruptions be redressed And I observe further Ibid. p. 291. you would not have Men bound to Communion with a particular Church but in Subordination to God's Honour and the Salvation of their Souls Yea you say Men are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed as are directly repugnant to these Ends. And where Men should be forced to damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences would not this be directly repugnant And yet are not such bound to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God c. You see now how far I have brought you even on your own Grounds how you will get off I know not Then might it not have been expected that you would have been more favourable and charitable towards the Assemblies of those Ministers and Christians that are kept off from you by unlawful Terms or at least such unnecessary Terms as are to them unlawful You speak more temperately Rational Account pag. 331. Here let me use some of your own Words there which something favour those Assemblies you now engage so zealously against By their declaring the Grounds of their Separation to be such Errors and Corruptions which are crept into the Communion of your Church and imposed on them in order to it they withal declare their readiness to joyn with you again if those Errors and Corruptions be left out ☞ And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute Separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such Abuses be reformed This they 'l say is very good But now in your new Impartial Account Preface pag. 46. you speak in another Dialect Would they have had me represented that as no Sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it c. What that which is as plain a Sin as Murder pag. 209. which is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. And yet on the other hand would you have them conform to you though against their Consciences Would that be no Sin Would God be wel-pleased with such Service as was done but to please Men while their Consciences in the mean while condemned them for it Can you say bonâ Fide that it is better more pleasing to God that Men conform to your Modes and Ceremonies though they have real Doubts of Conscience that they are unlawful or better they should live without God's publick Worship and Ordinances then to joyn with such as the Non-conformists That this is as the Sin of Murder Dare you go or send to all the Dissenters in your Parish supposing you take them to belong to your Charge and give 'm it under your hand that though they are still unsatisfied after all you have said and written though they believe they should offend God if they joyned with you upon such Terms yet I say durst you give it under your hand that they would do better to joyn in your way of Worship than in that of the Non-conformists though they have no more doubt of joyning with the latter than you had heretofore If you are clear in the Point have you done this Or why do you neglect your Duty towards them Why do you not endeavour to bring them in
Sutton p. 27. n. 9. You were put in mind of it to inquire whether there be not some in publick Place not very well satisfied with what they have done who come not up to your Church-Rules As some read not all the Common-Prâ—yer they are enjoyned to read and yet had declared their Assâ—nt and Consent to the use at least as you would have it Some use not the Surplice some omit the Cross in Baptism some dare not put away from the Sacrament any meerly for not kneeling And yet you charge not such with Schism pag. 148. n. 5. yet have they different Rules or at least they differ from your Rules as well as Non-conformists And I know not whether you may not be understood to allow Men to go from their Parish Church pag. 145. n. 1. provided they elsewhere joyn with your Churches as Members of them What then is the parting Point from the Communion of your Church or the trying Point of Conformity without which a New Church is erected Here I offer this Note upon what you say farther pag. 148. n. 5. That many whom you condemn though not satisfied with such and such Orders of the Church yet continue in all Acts of Communion with your Church or in all that you will call parts of Worship and draw not others from it upon any meer Pretence no not at all though they dare not but joyn at other times with Non-conformists in that which they are well assured is as truly God's Worship and if they say in some Respects more pure you have not yet disproved it And therefore you should make good your word there and not charge such with Schism Or if you should say Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary that if Men differ never so little from those Rules it is to erect new Churches what woful rending work would this make By a Parity of Reason may not other foreign Churches be denied to have Communion with the Church of England How many that could not submit to these Laws and Rules without receding from their own publick Confessions Could the French and Belgick Churches assent to the Ius divinum of Episcopacy could they own it as evident to all Men diligently reading the holy Scriptures to be of Apostolical Institution And would not any one that reads the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Psaltzgraves Churches printed at London A. D. 1637 take them to have been averse from such Conformity as the Church of England stands upon You glory in the good Opinion of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church and their owning Communion with our Church pag. 96 97. And you make nothing of what hath been returned by way of Answer to Dr. D. Bonasus Vapulans is but a little Creature I confess to look on yet some that have read it do not look on it as nothing But if an owning of the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy and Re-ordination c. be made the Terms of their Communion with our Church how many Protestant Divines abroad that would renonuce Communion with us rather than be pleased with it upon such Terms And further if Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be necessary c. How many Parochial Ministers and Congregations as was noted before must be denied to be in Communion with the Church of England whom for the same Reason you must call new erected Churches For as one says alluding to that They who themselves were circumcised kept not the Law They who have assented and consented observe not the Orders and Rules to which they have given their Assent c. And yet as you have it from another The Priests in the Temple break the Law and are blameless Then must you not either acquit many Dissenters here or condemn many Conformists You see how fain I would have Protestant Dissenters acknowledged still to have Communion with the Church of England if it might be the difference being not in such things as belong to it as a Church If you took away those things which are as the Wall of Partition betwixt you and them your Churches would be as sound and entire without them And if you make them Sâ—hismaticks for differing from you in such things while they agree with you in all things necessary whether will you not make your selves or other Churches you would be ashamed to disown Schismaticks who differ from you in as great Matters as such Dissenters do Here let me press you a little further Keep to your own Rule Preface p. 46. As far as the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism reach Then it follows if the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in Mens varying from such Rules P. 209. You argue From the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church And now say you I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men. Had you put the Matter home indifferently and impartially to the Consciences of Men on both sides that is both of Imposers and Dissenters many could not but have thought in their Consciences you was to be commended for it But then had you not pleaded as much for Dissenters as here you plead against them I must grant they ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Unity would soon follow What Chillingworth p. 283. § 71. says of Protestants That they grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered Make this good of the Church of England and by my consent all we who have unwillingly appeared against you will readily and joyfully give you our publick Thanks What you say further p. 209. may thus be handed back again to you If there be no sufficient Reason to justify such Rules and Orders if they are a Violation of the Vnity of the Church you there make it a Sin as much as murder is and as plainly forbidden And therefore I do earnestly desire as you p. 213. all Parties concerned as they love their own Souls and as they would avoid the Guilt of so great a Sin impartially and without prejudice to consider that Passage of Irenaeus with you p. 212. That Christ will come to judg those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own Advantage than the Church's Vnity c. And if any indifferent Men had the matter put to them to decide who were more likely to regard their own Advantage whether some of you or such as Mr.
not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches And were they for our English Ceremonies Do not the Lutheran Churches hold some things lawful and indifferent which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable As things indifferent and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches I do profess plainly says Chillingworth p. 376. that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only the Bible I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. 6. Is this Rule of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule Do you find the one agreeable to the other Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies which they yet held undetermined by God's Word Was it their Judgment that each Nation or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things Do you find this within the first five hundred years Can you gainsay those Words of yours cited Rector of Sutton p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I sâ—arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs which might be an Argument of Moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23. the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters and yet live in Peace And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters and yet communicate one with another The Primitive Christians retained câ—ntrary Observations and yet as Irenaeus said held fast the bond of Love and Vnity Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church or the best reformed Churches have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters Here comes to my Mind that which you say Vnreas of Separat p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of râ—verence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery Yet with King Iames Defence of the right of Kings p. 47c the Christian Religion reformed is as to say purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs And p. 17. Altho 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 c. Agreeable to Chillingworth p. 287. â— 82. But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it from Arch-Bishop Whitgift I cannot tell However T. C. latter part of his second Reply p. 172. could not discern it to have any Solidity but called it a single solid Argument seeing Transforming may be in part as well as Reforming And you have not improved it at all But what a strange Assertion is that of yours p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church but the same wich our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days And will you stand to this that they died Mâ—rtyrs for Ceremonies and for such Impositions as have thrust out so many Ministers that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth for which indeed they laid down their Lives I had thought that I. Rogers the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution had been a Non-conformist As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered And can you make the World believe that they suffered for Conformity And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause whether Conformists or Non-conformists Indeed they agreed well in Red in Blood and Flames who before had differed in Black and White But as you will have it p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds c. And p. 4. I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us c. I say you would persuade us that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers who were for Reforming according to the Scripture rejecting all things repugnant thereto only they would have the Church reduced as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors p. 17. Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function and other Church-Members into Communion observed in those Antient Churches or one as near as could be to it and further to make it good that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule Or if you cannot do this you must then grant that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers that is the Scripture and those Primitive Churches and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire neque Domini est voluntas neque purioris Ecclesiae mâ—s 7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule If never so many Councils if all the Churches upon Earth determined that they had such Power that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law we could not submit to such Determination while we believe the Scripture which tells us so plainly that they have no Power for Destruction but for Edification I subscribe to that of Panormitan Magis Laico esse credendum si ex scripturis loquatur quam Papae si absque verbo Dei agat Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over Godâ—s Heritage And tho the Laity or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there yet no doubt by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome he gives this for one good Reason Because they usurp more Power than the Apâ—stle Paul accounted belonging to him 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith Quibus verbis testatur fidem nâ—mini subjectam
ours 'T is impossible for you to assign any Reason for the Cross in Baptism c. à natura rei now but what would have been as pleadable even in the Apostles times and at all times since Then is it not most probable that Christ would have made an universal Law for them that should equally respect all Churches had it been his Mind to have such things in his Church Indeed we find Christ hath instituted what religious Rites and Ceremonies he would have observed in the Sacraments of the New Testament And where he hath determined the matter himself what have Men to do more than to submit to his Determination What can Men do that come after the King None are like to do his work better or know his Mind better than himself 6. If the exerting such a Power be found contrary to many express Commands in the Word how can we imagine such a Power conveyed to Church-Governours in any general Command there The Scripture is no where contrary to it self Consult Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 v. 17 to the end of the Chapter And Chap. 15. 1 2. Are there such plain Commands in Scripture for mutual Forbearance and against judging and despising one another for such things as God hath not commanded and against offending the weak or casting a stumbling-Block in others way and for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church and can we think it probable or a thing credible that Christ would have all such Commands set aside meerly for the sake of things called indifferent Ceremonies Or that the Commands or Determinations of Church-Governours about such Matters should be of Force against the standing Rules and Laws of Christ who is King of his Church Matters of Order and Decency are things of another Nature necessary in genere as I have said before and yet Men cannot oblige us to this or that particular Order when it is repugnant to that whereunto it should be subservient Then much less is it the Will of Christ that meer indifferent things if no worse should take place of great and necessary Duties Such indifferent things must either be made necessary or else you must say it cannot be avoided That the Churches Peace may be broken sound Ministers and Christians that scruple the lawfulness of them may be ejected and cast out of Communion or their Consciences may be ensâ—â—red unnecessarily And yet one that ever read his Bible might know so much that the Governours of the Church have other work to do And as the second Book of Homilies says p. 3. Better it were that the Arts of Painting Plaistering Carving Graving and Founding had never been found nor used than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious should by occasion of Image or Picture perish and be lost So indeed better it were that no such Ceremonies had ever been appointed by Men than one Soul should be ensnared by them â—r one Minister or Member of Christ suffer 7. I query If Christ had not appointed the Sacraments of the New-Testament whether it had been in the power of Church-Governours to have appointed washing with Water in token and to put us in mind of our being washed and cleansed by the Blood of Christ and by the sanctifying influence and operation of his Spirit and so likewise to have appointed the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine as signifying that our Souls are to feed upon Christ whose Body was broken and whose Blood was shed for us Had not these been of the same Nature and as lawful as the significant Ceremonies which the Church hath taken on her to appoint Then let the People understand the Power of the Church that if Christ had never instituted Baptism and the Lord's Supper she could yet have in part supplied that want with those significant Ceremonies that would have been something like them 8. If Church-Governours have power to appoint such a Ceremony as the Cross in Baptism for Instance then they have power to add to the thing which God hath commanded and to make new parts of Worship But Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. forbids that You grant p. 337. That for Men to make new parts of Divine Worship is unlawful For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no Fault c. The Cross in Baptism is an Addition Tho you seem to understand the prohibition of adding to the Word of things directly repugnant yet that is not so properly an Addition as an Abolition As one says Prohibetur hîc additio non tantùm contrarii quae non tam additio est quà m abolitio sed etiam diversi v. M. Poli. Synops. Crit. in Deut. 4. 2. Methinks we may know what it is to add if we understand what it is to diminish then as they might not diminish or take away from God's Worship one significant Ceremony which the Lord had instituted by a Parity of Reason it would seem to follow that they might not introduce or add one significant Ceremony to the Worship God had instituted The Cross in Baptism is made a new part of Worship For that which is used in God's Worship in such a manner and to such an end that there needeth nothing but Divine Institution or God's appointing it to be used in that manner and to that end to make it a part of the true Worship of God that is made a part of God's Worship tho falsly for want of Divine Institution Had Christ appointed the Cross in Baptism as the Church hath appointed it to be used in token that we should not be ashamed c. had Christ appointed it by that Badg to dedicate us to the Service of him that died upon the Cross no doubt it had thus become a part of God's true Worship Here you speak short p. 348. The Canon says It is an honourable Badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of c. And what is that but a Sign from Men to God to testify their Subjection Which by your own Confession there is an Act of Worship and yet you will have it no such thing P. 355. you say If Christ had instituted it with such Promises then no doubt c. And I say If Christ had instituted it only in token that we ought not to be ashamed to confess him which is less than that hereafter we shall not be ashamed had he appointed it only to signify our Duty it would yet no doubt have been made a part of Worship And I hope upon second thoughts you will say the same Some other Passages relating to this Matter I would have glanced at but it is time to hasten to an end of this Conclusion I have been so long upon Yet methinks your slighty Exposition of the second Câ—mmandment p. 141. calls for one glance here Can you find no more in the Affirmative part of it than a Command to worship God without
is plain that there is real need of more Ministers than are in place And I desired to know whether it was better that Men shoulâ— be untaught and so pâ—rish for lack of Knowledgâ— than taught by such as the Non-conformists Whether the Souls of Men are of no more value than our Ceremonies But as yet I have no Answer from you that may satisfy What you further say to me p. 137. I have fully answered before Again pag. 144. You cite a few Words of mine wich I know to be true of some and pitty them And though it is said we would certainly give but bad Quarter to others yet I hope if I had been all this time in placâ— for me they should have had their Liberty to hear those they were 〈◊〉 â—â—tisfied with and could profit more by Pag. 168 169. You contradict not what I said Rector of Sutton p. 15 16. Onl◠〈…〉 little use of it as seem'd to serve your purpose there while yet 〈◊〉 â—â—ands good against you Pag. 196. You do not fully set down my meaning though it was plain enough Rector of Sâ—tton p. 42. Neither do you take any notice of what you had said your self Irenic p. 65. though you there meet with it again Wherefore I wonder how you could overlook it If that Council at Gangrae had enjoyned the religious use of a peculiar habit appropriate to the Service of God and others had refused to submit to it I question then whether the Council would not have been the Schismaticks As whether any without being guilty of making a Schism can exclude and silence Ministers for wearing Beards or for not obeying such a trifling command as that was Mr. B Church-History p. 360 361. § 55. But upon that matter of the Council's condemning the followers of Eust. Sebastenus I still query whether you ought not to make a difference betwixt such as separated meerly upon pretence of Purity while they were indeed defiled with gross Errors both in Opinion and Practice as I there shewed and such as are necessitated to withdraw and cannot otherwise keep their Consciences pure This you should consider As Chillingworth says p. 282. § 71. A Murderer can cry Not Guilty as well as an innocent Person but not so truly nor so justly And P. Martyr Loc. Com. cl 4. l. 6. p. 894. Si quaedam partes ab eo toto se dividant quod â—itiari infici nolint discessio erit laudabilis The seventh and last place where you take notice of me is p. 307. And there I am brought in as concluding with and for you about your National Church But if we are agreed herein why then do you call that which I say of it Rector of Sutton p. 20 21. A weak Assault as you do implicitly p. 303. § 23. Assaulting tho never so weakly is not agreeing but quite different or rather contrary But there I say 1. That we will thank you if you can prove the National Church of England as it is now established to subsist by a Divine Law and positive Institution of Christ. 2. I put it to the question whether it be not Schismatical for any National Church to make such Terms of Agreement and Communoon as are â—ot agreeable to that same Rule by which all Christians ought to walk And that your Terms are such is easy to prove from your own Words there recited And whether they that so far separate from such a dividing National Church tho they comply not with its established Rule may not yet be found walking by the same Rule in the true sence of your Text Yet these things you thought fit to pass by and would notwithstanding persuade your Readers that had rather take your Word than be at any pains to compare things together that we are agreed and this point is thought fit to be given up And yet I do not deny but Christians of whatsoever Society whether a less or greater should be for uniting so far as they can to preserve and strengthen the Society and to promote true Religion and Christianity So I agree with you in what you say p. 292. The best way of the Churches Preservation is by an Union of the Members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it And doubtless this is a good and necessary Proviso for that which overthrows the ends of Vnion is a wicked Conspiracy against Christ and his Church rather than true Christian Vnity or Concord But then it should be considered if a National Church sets down such Terms of Union as have no tendency to promote the common cause of Religion and true Interest of Christianity such terms as are sure to cause Dissention as evidently tend to divide break and shatter the Society whether the Churches Preservation be therein truly consulted or any way likely to be thereby secured And whether as Mr. Corbet says Kingdom of God c. p. 155. The Constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompâ—ssing of all true Christians which indeed makes for its most fixed and ample state And whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental Error in its Policy and will not always hinder its stability and increase Thus I think I have spoken to all the Passages in your Book wherein I am properly concerned Yet am I not at an end of my Task In your Preface you direct me to three Letters you have subjoined to your Treatise Preface p. 76. You say There is one thing more which this Author takes notice of Rector of Sutton p. 6. If we are condemned by oothers abroad we may thank our Friends at home who have misrepresented us to the World while we have not been allowed to plead for our selves Therefore to give satisfaction as to the Judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living I have subjoyned to the following Treatise some late Letters of theirs c. Now whether you have put these Letters in print with the consent of those that wrote them or by some Law or Priviledg peculiar to your self I know not nor shall I trouble my self to enquire And whether they were procured on purpose to grace and set off this Book of yours as by their Date they appear to have come lately as you say the first written in September 80. The second in October The third in November this however is not very material But it is likely some may think your Five Answerers confronted and confounded with the Authority of these three Letters of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living Yet to tell you my Thoughts I could not but think thus with my self That if we had no more cause to fear a French-Army confuting us by Club-Law than that any eminent French Protestant Divines would condemn us if they thorowly examined and knew our Cause we were so far safe enough Now as to these Letters
receive Ministers Episcopally ordained p. 440. so they should think it an Extream if we will not own such for Ministers as have been ordained by a Presbytery and that when there were not Bishops at hand to ordain If we will force such to be re-ordained or will not admit of them as Ministers this is an Extream with them Add P. 443. Let not Men domineer over their â—â—â—th and Consciences a thing destructive to Religion and I hope they would not be for rejecting the Bridle of Discipline nor for shaking off the whole yoke of Government nor for depriving themselves of the Succours which might be drawn out of a general Vnion for to strengthen them in the true Faith and in true Piety But they cannot apprehend that the things imposed will ever contribute any thing to either of thâ—se Pag. 444. He seems to suppose they are kept off only from an Apprehension of some unpleasant Incoâ—â—eniencies in the Episcopal Government whereas generally it is not the Government it self but some particular Matters impâ—sed which they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto which causes the distance So add P. 447. Tho I have opportunity of conversing with very few yet I cannot think there is a Man of all those that believe the Presbyterian Government is more agrable to Scriptuâ—e-Rule than our Prelatical that stands off meerly because he cannot have what in his Judgment he prefers as the better Government So what he says towards the end of the same pagâ— The Question here is not about the esse â—r the bene esse but only about the meâ—â—us esse thaâ— they dispute with you fully proves â— as I said â—hâ—â— indeed they know not the true state of our Case as we see plainly he is quitâ— beside the Point we stick at Now I look back a little again Add P. 445. The Bond of Christian Charity doth not only joyn us with some of our Brethren but with all our Brethren to receive from them and to give them Edification by living together in the same Communion Then let the World judg by this Rule who have most Christian Charity You 〈◊〉 the Non-conâ—ormisis Many of these hear and joyn with you so 〈…〉 they can and have opportunity whereas few or none of you will hear â— joyn with them And yet you are sometimes pleased to 〈…〉 Bâ—thren 〈…〉 follows it still appears hâ— understood not the Case or was beside 〈◊〉 â—â—w many that â—ppâ—â—â—â— not of the Government yet could submit to it did 〈…〉 require any thing but what they are satisfied is agreeable to the Worâ— And both parts agree that God's Word ought to be the Rule of our 〈◊〉 What â—â—se is there considerable I have more fully debared with you beâ—ore Add Pag. 446 To imagine that we cannot with a good Conscience be present at Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve of all things in them it is certainly not to know neither the use of Charity nor the Laws of Christian Society But what if a Church requires Ministers and Christians to declare their Approbation of Things they cannot approve of and to practise that in the Worship of God which in their Judgment ought nâ—t to be practised Is not this a different Case Would not this be contrary to true Faith and Piety And are not such so far cut off from the Communion of that Church by what he says in the beginning of that Page That is not allowable for such to do which yet they look upon as tolerable in others who are otherwise perswaded in their Minds abut the same Add P. 447. I cannot believe that there is any one among them that looks upon your Episcopacy or your Discipline or certain Ceremonies which you observe as Blots and capital Errors which hinder a Man from obtaining Salvation Something was spoken to this in the Answer to the first Letter So I say still they are not so well satisfied about these as to give a true Assent unto them and then to declare their Assent would be foul Dissimulation They know not how easily others get to Heaven by their Conformity But if they conformed against their Consciences they know not how they should ever come there without Repentance Then pag. 448. he comes to put in a good Word for us I hope you will not be wanting in the Duties of Charity and the Spirit of Peace and that when the Dispute shall be only of some Temperaments as if the Dispute had not been of these all this while Or of some Ceremonies that are a Stumbling-block and yet innocent things and which in themselves are nothing in comparison of an intire Re-union of your Church under your holy Ministry you will make it seen that you love the Spouse of your Master more than your selves and that it is not so much from your Greatness and your Ecclesiastical Dignity that you desire to receive your Glory and your Joy as from your pastoral Vertues and the ardent care 〈◊〉 take of your Flocks Now I had thought that all the Dispute or Difference betwixt you and the Non-conformists had been only about some Ceremonies and the like things I mean such as in themselves are nothing in comparison of an intire and happy Vnion Were but such things removed or no such things imposed I should hope you would be soon united and agreed He that understands not that it is the strict and rigorous imposing of such things which the Imposers might lawfully take off and we cannot lawfully submit to which keeps up the Difference amongst us I say he that understands not this and does not consider and speak to it he cannot be supposed rightly to consider our Case And yet how obvious is it that this is quite over-looked here not once seriously debated in any of these three Letters And therefore as I before appealed to you as Iudg whether we were not misrepresented here and you have judged the matter already so I shall expect that in the next Impression of this your Impartial Account you will take care these Letters may be left out You cannot but know that they were no competent Iudges betwixt us who had only heard one Part and seem wholly ignorant what the other Part hath to plead for themselves Here I remember what you say Preface pag. 35. of one you speak of there But I must do the Author that Right to declare that before his Death he was very sensible of the Injury he had done to some worthy Divines and begged God and them pardon for it So would I have you to do these worthy eminent learned Divines and us also that write to smother their Letters as soon as you can if you do no more Otherwise though I may not live or have liberty to call you partial the World may account you so And yet observing every one of them to have some touch for Moderation Charity some Temperament and the like if a Council of such as these were called and
too p. 287. By that Rule whosoever regulates his Life and Doctrine or Belief I am confident that though he may mistake Error for Truth in the way he shall never mistake Hell for Heaven in the End And yet further should you not consider whether it be not more agreeable to the Revealed Will and Mind of Christ that you should suffer some Taâ—es to grow rather than pluck up good Corn with them Reverend Sir It having so happened that poor I have been called out among others an hundred times fitter to shew my Opinion touching the Matter you have started I cannot but think as I here declare so far as my Judgment serves you might have employed your Time your Learning and Parts to much better purpose than you have done in this late Piece of Work Surely my Life would be but sad to me if I could not find more pleasing Work than this that you have been an Occasion of engaging me in And yet I hope to have more Comfort in it at the great day of Accounts than I can conceive you to have of yours in that Day If you lay the Vnity â—f Christians upon Conformity too or Vniformity in doubtful and suspected if not unlawful Practices a general Vnion can never be had or hoped for If you would make the way to Heaven narower than Christ has left it many will be forced to leave you here But now if you would henceforth propose and promote an Vnion amongst Christians uâ—on Catholick Ierms we are for you and would heartily joyn with you And as that most learned and pious Bishop Vsher Serm. of Vnivers of the Church and Vnity of Faith p. 43 44. If at this dâ—y we should take a Survey of the several Professions of Christianity that have any large Spread in any part of the World and should put by the Points wher in they did differ one from another and gather into one Body the rest of the Articles wherein they all did generally agree we should find that in thâ—se Propositions which without all Controversy are universally received in the whole Christian World so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a Man unto everlasting Salvation Neither have â—e cause to doubt but that as many as do walk according to this Rule Peâ—â—e shalâ— be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God Now thereâ—orâ— do as he says ibid. p. 18. We for our parts dare not abridg this Graâ—t and limit this great Lordship as we conceive it may best fit our own turns but â—â—ave it to his own Latitude and seek for the Catholick Church neither in this Part nor in that Pâ—ece but among all that in every place call upon the Nâ—mâ— of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours And if a Zeal for such a general Comprehension and happy Vnion of Christians will to use the Words of Mr. de L' Angâ—e p. 424. briâ—g down a thousand Blessings of Heaven and Earth upon those that shall contribute the most unto it resolve now and hence forward to put forth your self this â—ay Put in for your share of Blessings I remember I concluded my former writing with a Collect borrowed from you Here I would say Amen to that Prayer with which Dr. Potter shuts up his Answer to Charity mistaken That it would please the Father of Mercies to take away out of his Church all Dissention and Discord all Heresies and Schisms all Abuses and false Doctrines all Idolatry Superstition and Tyranny and to unite all Christians in one holy Bond of Truth and Peace Faith and Charity that so with one Mind and one Mouth we may all joyn in his Service I add no more but that the Father of Lights would so direct your Studies and Course that you may do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth which is the Prayer of Reverend Sir Your humble and faithful Servant Iohn Barrett I more wish than hope that of these sad Controversies here will be The END Proper Materials drawn from the true and only way of Concord c. QUERY 1. WHether the Apostle Paul hath not clearly and fully decided the case against censuring or despising one another for things Indifferent Rom. 14 15. And if Men wiâ—â— not understand nor stand to that Decision whether it should be any wonder if they will not understand or be satisfied with our most cogent Arguments Second Plea for Peace p. 169. § 75. Whether they that say the Apostle doth not forbid such Impositions there can see Day for Light 1. Doth he not forbid censuring despising and not receiving one another and command Dissenters to receive one another And then must he not forbid such Imposition as is inconsistent herewith 2. Doth he not direct this Command to all the Church of Rome even to the authorized Pastors and Rulers of the Church as well as to the People 3. Was he not a Pastor and Ruler of that Church as fully authorized as any that should succeed 4. Is not this Scripture as others written for a standing Rule and so obligatory to Rulers still ib. p. 170. § 77. Did not the Apostle speak here by Divine Authority Are not his Words recorded here part of Christ's Law indited by the Spirit And may we think that any that come after him or to whom he wrote should have power to contradict or obliterate the same Way of Concord p. 152. 5. Do not his Reasons touch the case of all Churches in all Ages and not only some particular Persons and Case As he argueth from the difference betwixt well-meaning Christians as weak and strong as doubting and as assured as mistaken and as in the right c. If such weak mistaken Christians in such matters ever have been and ever will be in the Church upon Earth doth not the reason from their case and necessity still hold 6. How many great and pressing moral Reasons that all Christians are bound by are heaped up here Does he not argue 1. From Christian love to Brethren 2. From human Compassion to the Weak 3. From God's own Example who receiveth such whom therefore we must not reject 4. From God's Prerogative to judg and our having no such judging power in such cases 5. From God's Propriety in his own Servants 6. From God's Love and Mercy that will uphold such 7. Because what Men do as to please God must not be condemned without necessity but an holy Intention cherished so it be not in forbidden things 8. Because Men must not go against Conscience in indifferent things 9. From Christ's dreadful Judgment which is near and which we our selves must undergo 10. From the Sin of laying Stumbling-blocks and occasions of Offence 11. From the danger of crossing the end of Christ's Death destroying Souls for whom he died 12. Because it will make our Good to be ill spoken of 13. Because the Kingdom of God or Constitution of Christianity and the Church lieth in
also May I give away the needful helps to my Salvation because others have them should their Salvation satisfy me instead of mine own First Plea for Peace p. 89 90. Whether should Men persuade the poor to famish rather than against Law to beg because if thousands of them dye of Famine yet other People are supplied ib. p. 102. Q. 14. Whether the antient Christian Pastors preached not against the Will of Princes for 300 years and after that against the Will of Christian Princes as Constantius Valens Theodosius junior Valentinian c. And whether not only Apostles said that God was to be obeyed rather than Men but such as Timothy who was ordained by Man were not strictly charged before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judg the living and dead at his appearing and Kingdom to preach the Gospel and be instant in season c. ib. p. 226 227. Q. 15. Whether any Man hath Authority to forbid a Faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-Power to perform the Office to which he is ordained And whether such remain not under a Divine Obligation which Man's Law cannot dissolve Whether it be not right as Bishop Bilson saith If Princes forbid us we must go on with our work What if an Interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdom Must all obey What if it silence more than can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that would so bind Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists c. or only the Orthodox Must God ask leave of Rulers to be worshipped as God Hath God made Men Judges whether the Gospel shall be preached or not or whether People shall be Saved or left to perish in their Ignorance and Sin And how cometh the Orthodox to be authorized to do Mischief or to forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than an Heretick or a Christian more than an Heathen Is he not bound to do more good than they rather than authorized to do more hurt Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 84 85. or 78 79. See also p. 21. Q. 16. Where such Sins are made the condition of Ministration by Men in Power as that all the whole Ministry of a Kingdom are bound in Conscience to deny Consent and Conformity thereto Whether is it not the duty of all the Ministry in primo instanti to forbear their Ministerial Office or of none the Reason being the same to all Now if all these must forbear or lay down their Office because forbidden by Men to exercise it then is it not in the Power of a Prince to cast out Christianity when he pleaseth and to deny God all publick Worship And must we not then ask leave of Rulers that Christ may be Christ and Souls may be saved as if the Keys of Heaven and Hell were theirs First Plea for Peace p. 114 115. But whether must not all agree that to silence all the Ministers of the Nation is a thing that God hath not given any Man authority to do because of the necessity of their Ministry and consequently to silence any necessary Ministry at all ib. p. 223. And if all must not lay down their Ministry why must a 1000 or 2000 do it rather than all the rest If it be said the rest are a competent supply to the Churches how shall we be sure that other Mens sinning will absolve the Innocent from their Duty As if I were bound to be a Minister only till other Men will Sin And where can the Wit of Man ever set Bounds as to this Matter Will it not be granted that if the most in France conform to Popery this will not disoblige all others from the exercise of their Ministry And who then can say what those Untruths and Sins are which a weak and erring Ministry may be guilty of which shall serve to disoblige the rest And were not this an easy way to introduce any Error by forbidding any but the Defenders of it to Preach Ib. p. 115 116. Q. 17. Whether God hath authorized the Magistrate to chuse and command in what Words only every Pastor shall publickly pray to God and what Books and Words of Men he shall profess Assent and Consent to and what dedicating Symbols of Christianity he shall use as engaging in the Christian Covenant and to command Ceremonies and Modes for Dissent wherein he shall deny Baptism and Church-Communion to all Dissenters tho the things be taken to be indifferent by the Magistrate and great Sins by the Dissenters Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 14. Q. 18. Whether Pastors usurp not Power over one another when they command all about them to speak to Men from God or to God from Men in no other Words but what they the Usurpers shall write them down making Ministers but Cryers to read their Prescripts and Proclamations Second Plea c. p. 142. Q. 19. Whether any but Volunteers should be taken for true Christians or admitted to Holy Communion to receive the Seals of Pardon and Life Way of Concord third Part p. 27. § 7. And whether Pastors of the Churches should be constrained to administer Sacraments to any against their Consciences Whether it be not their Office to be Judges who is to be baptized and to communicate Ib. p. 123. Q. 20. If any be urged to take a Re-ordination against their Judgments whether Morals must not be preferred before Rituals and Rituals never set against them And whether they should not be of this Mind that deny the Scriptures to have unchangeably fixed all Rituals and yet confess that Morals are fixedly determined Ib. p. 214 215. It is not contrary to the temper of the Gospel which ever subjecteth Ceremonies Rites and External Orders to Morals and to Man's Good and the great Ends Ib. third Part p. 81. Q. 21. When the most learned sober judicious Conformists differ not at all from us about the Matter it self to which we deny Conformity but confess it to be unlawful as to the hardest Points of the imposed Subscriptions Oaths Declarations and Covenants and only take the Words in such a Sence in which we our selves could take them were we persuaded that it was indeed the true meaning of them Query hereupon How it comes to pass that they who are as much as we against that Sence which we disown and agree with us in the Matter should deserve Liberty Honour and Preferment for otherwise interpreting the Words of the Law which the Lawgivers themselves will not interpret when our Supposition that the Law-makers mean properly as they speak is taken to deserve Scorn Silencing c. from them that will not expound their Words to us Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea c. p. 116 117. And seeing as those worthy Conformists must grant that if the Words of the Laws be properly to be understood and not with their Limitations then the Conformists are in the wrong and the Non-conformists in the right
untrue or evil or which all Men may not consent to therefore all others must think so too and say as they Who can think that in many thousand uncertain Words all Men can and must be of the same Mind and approve them all alike Or that honest Men can lye and say that they assent to what they do not ibid. p. 88. Q. 31. If Men in all these must be brought to Uniformity and Practising in the same Mode whether must it not be either by Argument and Perswasion or by Force And whether it be not certain that the first will never do it Besides a multitude of Reasons whether doth not many hundred Years experience prove that all Christians will never be in all things of a mind about lawful and unlawful Duty and Sin And whether it be not as certain that Force will never do it Will a sound Believer sell his Soul to save his Flesh or hazard Heaven by wilful Sin to save his Interest on Earth ibid. p. 89 90. Q. 32. Whether in regard of the diversity of mental Capacities and Apprehensions the best will ever agree in any but few plain and certain things Way of Concord 3d Part p. 109. And Q. 33. Whether universal Concord may not take in most of the differing Parties though not as such by receiving any of their Errors yet as Christians who agree in the common Essentials of Faith and Piety And whether we should not hold essential Unity with all that hold the Essentials of Christianity though with those that hold Integrals more purely we are to have more full and nearer Concord than the rest that have more Errors ib. p. 72. Whether Christians ought not to bear with one another without having their Affections alienated from and much more without persecuting one another in greater Matters than most of the dissenting Parties disagree in Whether Christians of as different Principles may not yea and ought not yet to love each other and live in Peace Sacril Desert p. 7 8. 9. Whether the Novatians for many Ages were not tolerated by the wisest and godliest Emperours and Bishops ibid. p. 14. Q. 34. Whether the Terms of Church-Communion must not be such as take in all that Christ taketh in and would have us take in i. e. All that are fit for Church-Communion And whether they should not be such Terms as all true Christians fit for such Church-Communion if imposed would have united in in all Ages and Places of the Church since the days of Christ till now And whether those Terms that would have divided the Church are fit means to unite it Or can we think that the Church should now unite upon such Terms as it never united before Second Plea for P. p. 152 153. Q. 35. Whether Christ himself hath not instituted the Baptismal Covenant Mat. 28. 19. to be the Title of visible Members of the Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified and hath not commanded all the baptized as Christians to love each other as themselves and though weak in Faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful Disputations and so far as they have attained to walk by the same Rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judg each other for tolerable Differences And whether any mortal Man hath Power to abrogate these Terms of Church-union and Concord which Christ hath made First Plea for P. p. 34. Q. 36. Whether Christ who made the Baptismal Covenant the Test and standing Terms of Entrance did set up Pastors over his Churches to make new and stricter Terms and Laws or to preserve Concord on the Terms that he had founded it and to see that Men lived in Unity and Piety according to the Terms of the Covenant which they had entered Second Plea for P. p. 154. And when they have as Ministers not as Lords received Men on Christ's Terms whether they may excommunicate and turn them out again for want of more or only for violating these ibid. p. 155. Q. 37. Whether it be not a strange Contrariety of some to themselves who judg that all Infants of Heathens Jews Turks or wicked Men are without Exception to be taken into the Church if any ignorant Christian will but offer them and say over a few Words and the Adult also if they can but say over the Creed by rote and a few Words more that would fill the Church with Enemies of Christ and yet when Men are in deny them Communion unless they will strictly come up to many humane unnecessary Impositions as if far stricter Obedience to Men perhaps in Usurpations was necessary than to Jesus Christ Way of Concord p. 118. § 10. Q. 38. Whether the universal Church had not Unity long upon the Terms of Baptism and the Creed and Scriptures without any other Subscriptions Oaths or other Professions made necessary to Communion And whether it ever had Union upon such additional Terms of new Professions Subscriptions and Oaths as most Churches now impose and require Whether they departed not from Unity and Concord and so continue divided to this day when they departed from the antient Simplicity and the primitive Terms ibid p. 157. § 42. And whether those Pastors who will make Canons that alâ— English Protestants shall agree in Subscriptions Professions Oaths Forms and Ceremonies which they are not agreed in nor ever will be do not in effect say we will break them more in pieces and set them farther from each other than before ibid. p. 183. § 100. Whether the hereticating and cursing Men for doubtful Words or want of Skill in aptness of Expressions yea or for Errors which consist with having Faith in Christ be not so far from being a means of the Churches Good that it hath been the grand Engine of Satan to exercise Tyranny excite Hatred and Schism c. and therefore carefully to be avoided Way of Concord p. 195. § 34. whether anathâ—matizing Men for doubtful Actions or for such Faults as consist with true Christianity and continued Subjection to Jesus Christ be not a sinful Church-dividing Means ibid. p. 195 196. Q. 39. Whether Addition to Christ's Terms be not very perilous as well as Diminution as when Men will deny Church-entrance or Communion to any that Christ would have received because they come not up to certain Terms which they or such as they devise And though they think that Christ giveth them Power to do thus yet whether their Error will make them guiltless Or whether imputing their Error to Christ untruly be not an Aggravation of the Sin ibid. p. 119. § 1. Whether it is a small Fault to usurp a Power proper to Christ ibid. § 2. Whether it be not dangerous Pride to think themselves great enough wise enough and good enough to come after Christ and to amend his Work ibid. § 3. And whether this imply not an Accusation against him and his Institutions ibid. § 4. And whether the merciful Lord and
you cannot well plead the Cause of our Separation from Rome without pleading something for Dissenters But to return to your Impartial Account p. 209. You say Violation of the Unity of the Church where there is no sufficient Reason to justify it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. All which returns upon your selves if the Arâ—h-Bishop's Words may take place And consider further seriously whether there be any sufficient Reason to justifie the pressing and imposing of those things which might lawfully be forborn when the imposing of them will certainly cause a Violation of the Churches Unity and Peacâ— Yet this is a thing you take no notice of unless it be to justify it As p. 76. The Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Indâ—pendents Aâ—â—baptists and Quakers And pag. 59. So it is impossible for them to answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Now lay these together and what follows but that as much is to be pleaded for the English Ceremonies and other things imposed which the Non-câ—nformists stick at as can be pleaded for the baptizing of Infants or against Re-baptization and I may add or against the way of the Quakers In the Fifty Queries concerning Infants Right to Baptism I set that down last which â— desired they would specially observe Scil. Whether the Anabaptist's Schism be not worse than their simple Opinion And whether it be not desireable and possible that some Way be found out and Terms laid down in which good and sober Men on both sides might agree and hold Communion as Christians concerning which something is proposed there from Mr. B. to others Consideration This the Author of the Anti-Queries took little notice of which engaged me to mind him of it again in my Reply p. 25 26. And yet I have met with no other Answer from him but that he is loth at present to give an Answer to it intreating all his Friends to take it into Consideration because it is a matter of Moment and common Concern T. G's Controversy c. epitomised p. 64. From whence I conclude if such Terms of Moderation were offered they would be hard put to it scarce know what to say for a standing off and denying to have Communion with Christians of a different Perswasion but they would have enough to say against your Terms and that from your self and not only in your Irenicum but in your Rational Account p. 209. It is a very necessary Enquiry what the cause of the distance is and where the main Fault lies and it being acknowledge that there is a possibility that Corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth Men to communicate with a Church in all those they will say in any Corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to Reason that the cause of the Breach must lie there where the Corruptions are owned and imposed as Conditions of Communion c. I should have hoped that at least you would have granted the conditions put upon Ministers to be very hard yet I find nothing but a deep silence here Tho Mr. Cheny says I am satisfied that it is in it â—elf a great and `dreadful Sin to silence the Non-conformists It seems here is a provoking Sin which you was willing to overlook tho once in your Sermon p. 20. you were very near it 6. Do you speak Impartially p. 378 379. when you tell us you wonder that none of us have taken any care to put any stop to Separation or to let you know where you may fix and see an end of it what Scruples are to be allowed and what not I will say nothing for those who are better able to speak for themselves but for my self I thought I had told you plainly and sufficiently out of your Irenicum if you will not be offended that I call it yours where I would have you fix Let Christians stand upon the same terms now as they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Do not add other conditions of Church-Communion than Christ hath done As Rector of Sutton p. 6 7. See also p. 59. If you make no new Terms and yet others will separate from you still the Sin is theirs but if indeed you add other Terms then beware that you be not found the Schismaticks Do not turn me off here as you do Mr. Baxter's Way of Concord You â—â—â—not justly say we go on in impracticable Notions here or dividing Principles When you have that Word Preface p. 38. As tho he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth You forgot that others might as well apply it to the Rector of Sutton for publishing his Irenicum And I hope you will not deny but we are backt with great Authority when you consider what King Iames tells Cardinal Du Perron by the Pen of Isaac Causabon which Mr. Baxter takes notice of Direct p. 752. His Majesty thinketh that for Concord there is no nearer way than diligently to separate things necessary from the unnecessary and to bestow all our labour that we may agree in the things necessary and that in things unnecessary there may be place given for Christian Liberty A Golden Sentence And there is nothing that can be proved necessary but it must be either expresly taught or commanded in the Word of God or deduced thence by necessary Consequence And that of the Lord Bacon Essay 3. is considerable who for the true placing the Bonds of Vnity would have Points fundamental and of Substance in Religion truly discerned and distinguished from Points not meerly of Faith but of Opinion Order or good Intention And Chillingworth is full of such impracticable Notions if they deserve to be so called p. 197. He that could assert Christians to that Liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs to Truth a most Heroieal Service And seeing the over-valuing of the Differences among Christians is one of the greatest Maintainers of the Schisme of Christendom c. p. 198. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter of playing the Pope it is for doing it too much and not too little Take away these Walls of Separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of Men for not subscribing to the Words of Men as the Words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no Man Master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no Title to it and let them that in their Words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their Actions In a Word take away Tyranny which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors and Superstitions and Impieties I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full