weight as may be seen in his Preface From these words of Mr. A. the Dr. takes occasion to enquire what a rare advocate had this man been for the Novatians Donatists Luciferians or whatsoever Schismaticks rent the Church in pieces in former times And supposing St. Cyprian and St. Austin and other great opposers of the ancient Schisms to be met together he gathers from these words and the Principles of Separation that he lays down elsewhere in his Books how he would accost them Page 198 Then forms an elegant Oration for him supposing him haranguing it before them Page 198 199. And page 200. these expressions he puts in his mouth Why do you Austin and Cyprian and other Reverend Fathers cry out so often of the Sacrilegiousness of Schism We know no other Sacriledg but the Sacrilegious desertion of our Ministry in obedience to the Laws this is a Sacriledg we often talk of and tell the people it is far worse than robbing Church-plate considering what precious gifts we have These last words are I am afraid a prophane jeer and look more like words dropt from the pen of Ben. Johnson or Fletcher than that of Dr. St. Hath not God endued Mr. B. for 't is on him he reflects and other Nonconformists with precious gifts for 't is a Scripture-word and I 'le make bold to use it though I be thought to cant and can the Dr. deny it or doth it become his gravity to deride them If he must use his Sarcastick faculty I wish he would chuse some common objects to employ it on and not on things that are sacred and divine for such are the gifts wherewith Mr. B. and others of his Brethren are blessed of God and I believe the Dr. in his conscience can't deny it however he takes liberty to deride them And when I pray and where did Mr. B. or any of his brethren say they knew no Sacriledg but that of the Sacrilegious desertion of their Ministry Let this be proved or else it must be reputed a defamation But peradventure the Dr. will say That when men play the Orator they are not obliged to speak exact truth but where will he find any thing in Scripture to patronizâ— it He endeavours to justifie an ugly sarcasm that he made use of in his Sâ—rmon by these words of our Saviour I came not to call the righteous but sinners to repentance but I am not very certain they will serve his purpose for some men that the Dr. values as well as some that he despises give another interpretation of them as he very well knows but where he will find any to justifie this Catechrestical scoff I cannot tell but may be he may find or make one do it But why doth the Dr. add in obedience to the Laws Do all Laws oblige so far as for Ministers upon that account to desert their Office If so then may not only the three children go to the fiery Furnace and Daniel to the Lyons but all Protestant Preachers to the flames if they continue to exercise their Ministry against the prohibition of Popish Laws If not then 't is not Laws but the equity and justice of Laws that lays an obligation on them and that is the controversie between him and his Nonconformable Brethren in which I will not interpose But this is not the only place where the weight of the Drs. Arguments is little for want of distinction restriction and limitation And this is an infirmity and weakness of discourse that runs through a great part of his Book and which renders it invalid to his Adversaries and especially Mr. B. But the Dr. enquires Whether it be not a sin to break the Churches Communion p. 198. To which I answer Yes doubtless all unnecessary Separation is a sin and such I do esteem much of the present Separation in England But what then Are all that are Schismatical unworthy to live upon the earth Must they be prosecuted by Laws to Imprisonment Banishment and Death Is there no way of curing a wound in the arm or leg but by amputation Are not Drunkenness Adultery Lying and Swearing sins Yes surely 't will not be denied But must all these Criminals be injured proscribed and sent to the Indies This would be thought unreasonable And why persons of some Schismatical Principles provided the main of their doctrine be sound and consistent with Christianity may not have as much favour as drunkards and other immoral men I know not But are there no other ways of reforming the Schismatical bumors of men but Gaols and Confiscations and other like Arguments Are there no methods of reclaiming Schismaticks but by Rods and Axes Are not personal instructions and kindness more agreeable to the nature of the Pastoral Office and the spirit of our Saviour whose servants we are and whose work we are to do in the world Methinks no man that hath read the New Testament should doubt of it and I do confess that I hate these Military methods of converting Dissenters and I never saw any good come of them I live in a Town where there are some Dissenters I have always treated them with kindness and have avoided to exasperate them either in my publick or private discourses and by this means they will come sometimes to hear me and will grant me to be a Minister of Jesus Christ whereas had I railed at them or prosecuted them at Law or encouraged others to do it they would never have come at me but accounted me a Limb of Antichrist and a Factor or Agent for the Devil And I must and do openly avow that 't is more easie to my mind to think that when they are absent from my Congregation they are serving God elsewhere than it would be to think they were some of them in prisons their Families wanting bread and others crying to God for vengeance on me as a persecutor and which is most easie to my mind living I doubt not will be so dying They are persons of holy lives and upright conversations at least some of them and I would not have a hand in persecuting and undoing them for all the Preferments this Church or this World affords Let me add thus much on the behalf of Mr. A. I do not believe that he either desires or pleads for universal Toleration or would defend all the ancient Schismaticks or that he would open his mouth on the behalf of Socinians Arrians Anti-Trinitarians Quakers or other like Sectarian Infidels all that he pleads for is liberty for peaceable and Christian Dissenters but I do think that the Reverend Dr. hath wrung from his words such a sense as he never intended or did once enter into his thoughts Pag. 273. The Dr. says I do not see but the objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules thereof that is Confirmation of children by the Bishop when they are able to give an account of
the necessary points of Christian faith and practice and Certificate be made thereof by the Minister of the Parish were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of discipline I wish with all my heart the Rules of the Church were reduced to practice which I am sure they never can nor will be whilst the Diocesses in England are of the present dimensions He that thinks any Bishop can confirm all the children in his Diocess doth but dream were he never so desirous of it and diligent in it 't were impracticable and the neglect and impracticableness of this thing is one great reason of the ignorance and wickedness of our Parishes and Congregations and thus 't is like to be till Diocesses be lessened and the number of Bishops encreased and some effectual care taken that children be instructed and confirmed Page 275. The Dr. asserts a power in the Presbyters of this Church to reject and deny the holy Sacrament to the scandalously wicked provided he give notice of it to the Ordinary within fourteen days and for this produces the Rubrick before the Communion I grant what the Rubrick allows but is not the Minister like to have a sine time of it if he must be bound to inform and prosecute all at Law that are scandalous and unfit to come to the holy Table The Dr. knows that all above the age of sixteen are bound to take the Sacrament three times a year by the Orders of this Church and in some great Parishes the number of the scandalous and wicked is so great that if the Minister be bound to prosecute all whom he accounts himself obliged in conscience to refuse the life of a Kennel-raker were more elegible than his for he must spend his time in perpetual travel and attendance upon Courts which is a very sine Employment for a man of piety and conscience and that desires to spend his time in his study and teaching and instructing the people committed to his care But the Dr. enquires What would you have every particular Pastor have an unaccountable power Or would you not have them bound to justifie what they do and prosecute the person for those faults for which they exclude him from the Communion I answer 1. I think it were not amiss if the excluded person were obliged to complain if he thought himself wronged and the Ministers were excused from doing the Office of an Apparitor but this I insist not on Therefore I add I plead not for an unaccountable power in particular Pastors but for such a power as they may account for which I am sure they can never do for this in great parishes and where the Diocesses are so large and wide and there is no man that will give himself the liberty to think can deny it The number of the scandalous is so great the distance from the Bishops Court in many places so far the tediousness and corruption of the Officers so abominable that it is a thing utterly impracticable 'T is impossible that any man can justifie himself in refusing to prosecute according to Canon all the scandalous that he may justly reject In brief either to talk or think of exercising Discipline or reforming this Church till we have more Bishops or Suffragans and other things altered which might be done if our Superiors pleased without altering the Constitution is to build Castles in the air and to dream of Rocks to set them on among the clouds of heaven Page 278. The Dr. quotes these words of Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish a person by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his Action against him To which he replies What need this publick admonition Doth the nature of Church-discipline lye in that To which I answer No man ever dreamt that the whole nature of Church-discipline consisted in publick admonition by name There are several intermediate acts of Discipline Publick admonition by name is not to be attempted till others have been essayed and tryed in vain And this publick admonition after the fruitless use of that which is private is that which Mr. B. says cannot legally be performed by the Presbyters of this Church But the Dr. makes a second Reply to those words of Mr. B. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this Whether the obligation to admonish publickly an offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion To which I answer I do not think that Ministers are obliged to admonish publickly all offenders after the unsuccessful tryal of private means and endeavours though no Law forbad it Pearls are not to be cast before Swine If the person or persons be such as will mischief wound or kill the Minister that should so admonish him or them I think he is not obliged to do it but whether out of that case and others of like nature a Minister may not be obliged to do it is another question yea though the Law should forbid it And 't is another question whether he be obliged to give such a person the holy Sacrament though the Law should command it Mans Laws are not valid against Gods If God obliges Ministers to publick admonition of scandalous and incorrigible offenders and to refuse them a participation in the holy mysteries of our Religion no man can take off the obligation Page 281. The Dr. says The due exercise of discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation and for this he quotes Calvin and Beza To which I answer I believe there are very few Parish-priests in England that are ambitious of having the exercise of discipline committed to their care and conduct and indeed very many of them have neither piety or prudence sufficient for the management of it But withall I must add I should be very sorry and some are very worthy of blame if it be so if most Parish-Ministers be not as capable of it as Chancellors Commissaries Officials and Surrogates who are the people that exercise what Discipline is exercised in this Church and 't is sufficiently known that many of them are persons of none of the greatest understandings the best prudence the tenderest consciences or the severest lives which yet are qualifications hugely necessary in persons that manage the Discipline of the Church In brief I condemn not the prudence of the Church of England in not committing the exercise of Discipline to every Parish-Minister but then I would humbly move that we might have Bishops enough to do it The Dr. appropriates to Bishops Government Ordination
and Censures and I am very well content they have them provided they will or can discharge them But of the impossibility of that I am past doubt for though the Diocesses of our English Bishops be not so great as that of the Pope which the Dr. acknowledges to be too great and spacious yet I think they are too large for their management and that the duty incumbent on them with respect unto them is utterly impracticable Mount Athos Polion or Ossa are neither of them so great as the Globe of the earth yet they are all burthens utterly insupportable Whether the Dr. will allow this multiplication of Bishops or Suffragans rather that the name Bishop may not become too common and so become less venerable I cannot tell I find him in many places of his Book and in his Preface very jealous of the honour of our Reformation and positively resolved never to condemn the Constitution of this Church nor the lawfulness of the Ceremonies hitherunto practised in it vide Pref. p. 89. I have my self a very great esteem for the Reformation of this Church and a mighty honour for the great and incomparable Hero's that were the Reformers of it but 't is no disparagement to say they were but men though the greatest men nor is it any Reproach to the Reformation to say it was imperfect The Learned and Pious Dr. Burnet hath observed divers defects and imperfections in it and I know not how they can be denied and to speak the truth concerning it is not to reproach it And what if it should be said that among others 't was an imperfection in our Reformation that the number of Bishops was not increased so far as that they might be sufficient for the work and duty incumbent on them Can a Bishop inspect the Clergy in a Diocess of the present dimensions can he exercise the Censures of the Church upon all the culpable delinquents in it can he confirm all the Children in it can he ordain Priests for all the Parishes therein with that circumspection wariness and care which was observed by the primitive Bishops and which the honour of this Church the Christian Religion and the salvation of souls doth require Doth the Reverend Dr. think those things can be done by any the most diligent and industrious Bishop on earth I dare say he cannot think it possible and if he doth not think it possible I would enquire further of him whether he does not think it very necessary and desirable that all this work were put into more hands that they may be capable of performing it for till then I am much assured it can never be done however necessary or desirable it may be These things being said I will now add I shall never desire the Dr. to condemn the Constitution of this Church nor will I brlieve many of the Nonconformists desire him to do it but I would humbly desire him to put to his helping hand for the amendment and perfecting of it and to perfect and compleat it is not to condemn it 't is only to confess it a little short of that perfection that it may attain and what great work is perfect of a sudden at its birth into the world In brief Diocesan Episcopacy I like and that 's the Constitution of this Church and so doth Mr. B. for ought that I can see but I would fain have more Bishops not to controul Episcopal Power but to assist in the performance of Episcopal Duty Page 301. The Dr. undertakes to confute what Mr. B. had said viz. that wherever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a constitutive regent part i. e. a standing governing power which is an essential part of it and this he promises to do from Mr. B. himself How well he hath done it let the Reader judg by what the Author of the Peaceable Design hath replied to him upon this Subject But the Dr. infers from what Mr. B. had said of the necessity of a Regent Head to every Church as followeth And so Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness and made a very plausible plea for his universal Pastorship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England To which I answer Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope no kindness at all for another visible Head may be assigned to the Catholick Church and that is the holy Jesus he is both the visible and invisible Head thereof he is unto it both a Head of government and a Head of influence he governs it by his Laws and by the influence of his Spirit and hath appointed inferiour officers for the government and direction of it according to his own institutions and though he be not seen by mortals here below yet he is visible and that is enough to constitute him the visible Head of the Catholick visible Church There are some Kingdoms that never see their Prince and in all Kingdoms multitudes of Subjects that never lay their eyes on him and yet he is never the less their Civil visible Head But there are some men in the world that will take very small occasions to signifie their displeasure against Mr. B. and what hath he done to deserve their lash and why must he be the Subject of these most twinging Satyrs they are the words of a late Author and what is the spleen that he vents against the Church of England that makes their choler to ferment and boyl 'T is true Mr. B. doth with a brave and generous courage rebuke what he thinks amiss in the gnvernours and government of the Church of England he speaks plainly and without respect of persons he flatters none nor fawns upon none but indifferently reproves whatever he thinks worthy of it in whomsoever it be And if this be to vent his spleen against the Church of England I think he hath very venerable patterns and examples for it both in the Old Testament and the New as this Learned Dr. very well knows If it should be said that Mr. B. reproves where there is no fault I answer I should much rejoice if this were true and I believe so would Mr. B. as well as I but he must shut his eyes against the mid-day light that thinks there is no fault in the Government of this Church or nothing worthy of the plainest and most keen reproofs therein 'T were very easie to name many things if a man delighted to rake in Sinks and Kennels I mean the proceedings in the Spiritual Courts Page 302. The Dr. tells us that Mr. B. had said in his Answer to his Sermon that he would fain learn of him what those rules and ties are which make a National Church whether divine or humane If it be a divine rule we says Mr. B. are of the National
SOME ADDITIONAL REMARKS ON THE LATE BOOK Of the REVEREND DEAN of St. PAVLS By a Conformable Clergy-Man Let your moderation be known unto all men the Lord is at hand Phil. 4.4 But if you bite and devour each other take heed that ye be not consumed of one another Gal. 5.15 LONDON Printed for Nathaniel Ranew at the Kings Arms in St. Pauls-Church-Yard 1681. Some Additional Remarques on the late Book of the Reverend Dean of St. PAULS c. SIR I Have read the Reflections on the Preface to Dr. Stilling-fleet's late Book You have imposed another task on me and that is to make some Remarques also on the Book it self The Learned Doctor had said in his Sermon that he dared to say That if most of the Preachers at this day in the separate Congregations were soberly asked their judgments Whether it were lawful for the people to join with them in the publick Assemblies they would not deny it This Mr. Alsop says he believes they would flatly deny and speaks it with confidence To which the Dr. replies I think no man doubts of his confidence that ever looked into his book but in this matter he is so brisk that he saith he doth not question that he should carry it by the poll and is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to triumph in the poll of Nonconformists at Guildhall as though all that gave their votes there had owned these principles of separation for which many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks and is a very unreasonable boasting of their numbers Page 107. This I think is one of the wildest conclusions that ever was inferred from any assertion The Dr. had said that he dared to affirm that most Nonconformist Ministers would acknowledg if they were asked the lawfulness of peoples joining in publick Assemblies Mr. A. is of another opinion and believes they i.e. the Nonconforming Ministers would flatly deny it and says he Let these men be brought to the poll I question not they will carry it and I suppose that though the Dr. preached in the Chappel he never took the poll of the Nonconformists i.e. the Preachers in Guildhall The meaning of all which is plainly no more but this Mr. A. believes that more of the Nonconforming Ministers would deny than affirm the lawfulness of joining in Parochial Churches and that if they were numbred those that are for the negative would carry it And to rebate the Drs. confidence of the affirmative he adds that tho' he preached in the Chappel yet he never took the poll of the Nonconformists in the Hall and therefore may be out and mistaken concerning them How can the Dr. infer from hence that Mr. A. doth indiscreetly triumph in the number of Noncon's in general when he spake only of their Preachers How can he infer that Mr. A. would suggest that all that gave their votes there did own the principles of separation when he spake not one word concerning them Some men may want persons to libel and expose but at this rate 't will be hard to want pretences and occasions for it and the Dr. deserves as little thanks for traducing Mr. A. as he would have deserved if he had reported the Gentlemen that gave their Votes at Guildhall as friends to the principles of separation P. 114. The Dr. having discoursed the inconvenience of Separation upon a conceit of purer administrations and less defective ways of worship and represented the ignorance pride injudiciousness and conceitedness of the ordinary sort of zealous professors and the ungovernable and factious humor of that sort of people and the pernicious consequence of complying with them in the words of Mr. B. he enquires And must the reins be laid on their necks that they may run whither they please because for sooth they know what is good for their souls better than the King doth and they love their souls better than the King doth and the King cannot bind them to hurt famish or endanger their souls To the Drs. question I shall reply by asking another Must the people be tied neck and heels together because they are proud ignorant and injudicious or because they are inclinable to faction and ungovernable Is there no medium betwixt laying the reins upon the neck and tying that and their heels together Betwixt permitting them a boundless liberty and giving them none at all Surely methinks 't were not difficult to see an intermediate space between extremes so vastly distant from each other And let me add Do not the people know what Preaching and Preachers do them most good what convinces their judgments bows their wills enlivens their affections and creates upon their souls the clearest and most passionate resolutions for the service of God and their own salvation If they do not know these things they are not men but brutes Do not men know which meat and drink doth best strengthen and nourish and is least offensive to their stomacks and digestive faculties This I think will be granted and may they not know what sort of preaching doth best edifie and build them in spiritual strength and stature And is it any dishonour to the King that the people know these things better than he does Or doth that person lay blame upon the King that should affirm it And yet this is that which the Doctor seems to insinuate for he enquires Why must the King bear all the blame if mens souls be not provided for according to their wishes that is if they have not such preaching and preachers as they would have But though the King be not to be blamed that mens souls be no better provided for there be men in the world that are to be blamed for it and who they are let the Doctor conjecture There are Preachers in this Church that have the cure of Souls to whom an honest Country Farmer would scarce commit the care of his Cows 'T is an expression of Causinus And who gave these pâ—rsons admission into the sacred Office every one knows But the Dr. proceeds Doth the King do any thing in this matter but according to the established Law and Orders of this Church why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament This is raking into old fores and looks like a malicious insinuation and a design of representing Mr. B. as il-loyal which to speak softly becomes not the charity and candor of the Doctor But what if he had kept that good old Phrase as he pleases to call it he had done no more than the Doctor himself doth in sense in the lines preceeding for he says the King doth nothing but by established Laws and Laws are the Acts of King and Parliament But the Doctor goes on And why did he i. e. Mr. B. not put it as it ought to have been that they know what makes for their own edification better than the wisdom of the whole Nation assembled in Parliament i. e. according to the good
and go along with their Pastors to the Devil and though they preach more for the encouragement of sin and vice than they do for godliness and virtue yet the people must not separate from them This to speak modestly is something crudely spoken and not with that usual judgment and caution as the Dr. expresses or should express his sentiments But the Dr. says this is directly contrary to the principles of the old Nonconformists and even to Mr. B. himself for as a Casuist says he p. 124. he thus determines 1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow people to separate from the Worship of God 2. Nor ull Ministerial faults but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intollerable Well and where is the inconsistency of this determination with what the Dr. quoted from him in the page before Did he there say that every personal or Ministerial fault would justifie Separation I can find no such thing he only mentions the utterly insufficient and heritical such as do more hurt than good and I think these are the same with such as prove Ministers and their Ministration utterly intollerable But by this and many other passages in this Book a man would be tempted to think that some others write in haste and without the advice of their friends as well as Mr. B. Page 130. The Dr. says that Mr. B. makes Conformity it self a scandalous thing and then tells the people over and over it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests especially when the scandal is notorious as it is in this case And Page 131. the Dr. adds He chargeth us with down-right Lying and Perjury and tells me of Thirty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity among which are Lying and Perjury and drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries To this I answer in Mr. B's own words of his first Plea in the Preface I write not this says he as accusing Conformists or the Law-makers but as answering their long and loud accusations and demands and if telling what I fear seem a telling what others are guilty of it is a consequent which I cannot avoid In his second Plea having asserted the moral impossibility of bringing all good Christians to believe Conformity lawful he gives many reasons for it and among others this because Conformity looks like a horrid and frightful evil being no less than deliberate Lying and Perjury and the justifying of thousands in it and the publick renouncing endeavours of Reformation And then he adds I am not saying that all these or any of them are such as they fear them to be but only that they fear them to be such pag. 173. And in his Answer to the Drs. Sermon these are his words I have only told you how many and heinous the sins are which we fear we should be guilty of should we Conform pag. 52. Hence 't is obvious enough by Mr. B's words that he accuses not others but vindicates himself and his brethren from the imputation of keeping up a Schism against their own consciences and in that very Chapter where he reckons up the several agravations of Perjury and Lying he doth not determine that the Conformable Clergy are guilty of them but says If they be so such are the aggravations of their sin Now I pray let it be impartially considered whether Mr B. hath not a difficult province to manage If he gives no reason or account of his own and his brethrens Nonconformity he and they are unconscionable Schismaticks if he do give some reason for it and account of it then he is interpreted to accuse the Conformists and repute them scandalous and perswade the people to Separation though he renounced all such accusations as is obvious from his words before-mentioned Yet after all this I have said on the behalf of this reverend man I must add for I am my self a Conformist that I am not of his opinion in the interpretation of the Subscriptions and Declarations imposed on the Clergy They are of ambiguous sense and meaning for what the sense of the Law makers and Imposers is who can be sure I cannot tell and if you enquire some will utterly refuse to give any sense or meaning of them others will expound them some in one sense and some in another The case being thus I do not think my self obliged to understand them in the worst sense that can be put opon them but in a sense of favour and such a sense Mr. B. says is by the most judicious Conformists put on them that he and his brethren themselves would submit to them if they could believe that were indeed the meaning of them I am not satisfied as yet that I am obliged to understand them in any other which I speak in vindicatinn of my own and my brethrens Conformity without reflection on those of other apprehensions or justifying the Impositions And upon this score there is a Paper Printed the last year as an account of the London Sheriffs holding their Office Which if any man doth honestly fear God so as he would in good earnest Conform if he could but cannot in point of scruple I would commend to his perusal who may perhaps see more to satisfy him in that one but very full and very much considered single sheet in regard to our present Conformity than he hath found hitherto in other Books upon that Subject though there be many which are or which would make Volumes that are written In Page 132. the Dr. charges Mr. B. with saying that he overthrows all Religion and sets up man in rebellion against God To which I answer all that Mr. B. intends in those words is no more but thus Such is the consequence of the Drs. Doctrine Whether it be rightly inferred let the Dr. and Mr. B. determine But this I am sure of that the Dr. infers many things from Mr. b's Doctrine which he detests and abhors as truly as himself abhors the setting up man above God Such are all Principles inconsistent with Government and all Pleas which lay the foundation for disorder and confusion whatsoever he says page 137. and 139. The Dr. had said in the Preface to his Sermon If it be lawful to separate on the pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is acknowledged in our case then a bare difference of opinion as to some circumstances of Worship in the best Constitution of Churches will be ground sufficient for Separation and this considering the variety of mens fancies is to make an infinite divisibility in Churches To which Mr. A. makes this reply That though some petty and inconsidrrable inconveniencies some litlte trouble may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of mens minds yet this is no reason why they should enslave their judgments and consciences to others So the Dr. quotes him but he expresses himself more at large and with words of greater
Church as well as you if humane he enquires how consent in these makes a National Church and how they come to be of the National Church which do not consent in them and objects the differences among the Conformable Clergy in the exposition of some of the Articles of this Church To which the Dr. answers three things I shall take notice only of the last of them viz. There is no difference among us concerning the lawfulness of the orders of our Church and duty of submission to them if there be any other differences they are not material and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best society in the world without breaking the peace of it as about the difference of orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he i. e. Mr. B. mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church To the first lines of this Paragraph which concern the agreement of the Members of this Church in the lawfulness of its orders and the duty of submission to them I shall reply nothing To the rest I say I am perfectly of the Dr's opinion and were it reduced to practice it would heal the most of the divisions and put a period to most of the separations that have rent and torn this Church in pieces for many years Why might not the Dissenters among us have been permitted to have continued in the Ministry and in the Church though they differed in some things in their judgments from the Conformable Clergy Would it have broken the peace thereof any more than the various apprehensions that are at present among themselves They are not all of a mind in the five points some of them understand and believe them after the sense of Calvin and others after the sense of Arminius and I might mention many others wherein they differ among themselves but the thing is sufficiently known and there is no need of it And are the differences among the Conformists themselves reconcilable with peace and those wherein the Nonconformists differ from them though they be no greater than the other irreconcilable with it What strange partiality is this Conformists may differ in multitudes of things without breaking the peace of the Church but if those that are Dissenters differ from them in a few impertinent and uncertain things the peace of the Church is subverted and all things put into confusion thereby The Conformists doubt at least some of them whether Bishops and Presbyters do differ in order or in degree some are past all doubt concerning it and do affirm they differ in order and not barely in degree This breaks no peace The Nonconformists cannot find that Word of God whereby 't is certain that children indefinitely which are baptized dying before they commit actual siâ— are undoubtedly saved and they are not very sure that all children that are baptized are regenerate by the â—â—irit or that they may safely say of all that they bury that God of his great mercy hath taken to himself the soul of the deceased person and give him hearty thanks that it hath pleased him to deliver him out of the afflictions of this sinful world and these are such dreadful and formidable things that the Church cannot be safe if the Members or at least any of the Preachers in it dispute the truth of them and therefore out they must go and if they attempt to exercise their Ministerial Office after they are ejected they are immediately the most damnable Schismaticks that ever the world did know and Prisons Fines Confiscations Banishments and all that is evil is beneath their sin and trangression Why a difference of opinion in these things might not be consistent with peace as well as in others that are of as great and somewhat greater import at least in my apprehension I am not able to divine if nothing but Reason and Religion were to determine concerning them but if spight malice and revenge and some other of those Antichristian passions be called to counsel and permitted to judg of them 't is not difficult to give a reason of the differing natures of these differences why some are judged consistent with peace and others utterly inconsistent with it But enough of this paragraph I shall conclude with one supplication to all the Conformable Clergy in England on the behalf of the Dissenters and 't is this That they may be permitted to differ from them in things of no greater moment than those in which they differ among themselves If it be said 't is not in their power to permit it I answer Time was when it was very much in their power to have done it and I think they might do well to use some endeavours to retrieve it or at least give some evidence that they wish well to it This I think is no unreasonable request how it may be resented I know not 't is the love of this Church and the peace thereof that hath caused me to propose it and that shall satisfie my mind But having said this on the behalf of the Dissenters I must add a word or two on my own behalf and that is That a fair and passable sense may be and is put upon these passages mentioned from the Rubrick and Liturgy by the Conformable Clergy and amongst them by my self but what is that to those whose judgments and consciences will not permit them to put that sense upon them All mens minds are not cast in the same mould all cannot admit that latitude of sense and exposition in those and many other things that some men do and can without offence and neglect to their consciences and must they therefore be shut out of the Vineyard of the Lord and denied the liberty of working there Certainly this is a severe method of proceeding and hardly reconcilable with the Laws of Christianity The Learned Dr. in several places of his Book represents Mr. A. as unlearned unread and very weak in his reafoning and argumentations Page 174. he accuses him of childish trifling about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon and in the same page and that next to it he mislikes his explication of the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 leaving out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he observes from Grotius is not found in one Manuscript the sense whereof he thus expresses What we have attained let us walk up to the same and that Greek phrase 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which he says implies no more than minding that very thing viz. v. 14. pressing towards the mark and then adds But if he had pleased to have read on to Phil. 4.2 he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie unanimity and St. Paul 1 Cor. 12.25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 th t there be
which may be managed with a strong bit and bridle as you please This is the sense of Mr. A's words in his Preface and what hurt is there in them Do not all Protestants speak the same language And is it not better that men eâ—r in some things than that they put out their eyes and see with those of other men blindly following their conduct and submitting and assenting to all their Impositions But the Dr. will say Is Separation by reason of the levity of mens minds only a small or petty inconvenience In answer whereunto I would distinguish of Separation There is a Separation that proceeds upon reasons apparently true and such is the Separation of Protestants from the Church of Rome and this is a great and necessary duty There is a Separation that proceeds upon probable reasons which sometimes are not cogent nor conclusive and yet they may be such as honest and upright minded men may not be able to free themselves from being entangled and fettered by them This is an inconvenience and whether it be great or small I know not how 't will be avoided in this state of weakness and imperfection but by remedies worse than the disease But that which to my apprehension seems the best way of avoiding it is Let nothing be made necessary to Communion in Churches but a few plain necessary things and this would certainly put an end to the most of those Divisions and Separations that have and do vex the Christian Churches and the Church of England especially and particularly But there is a Separation that proceeds upon reasons apparently false such is the Separation of the Socinians from the Reformed Churches and such is the Separation of many in the Church of England This is intollerable and by all prudent and Christian means and endeavours to be repressed By Separation here I mean not barely refusing Communion but setting up new Churches in opposition to those they have forsaken But it may be enquired further Whether Separation upon probable weak and unconcluding reasons be not sinful I answer Yes but what if it be there is some difference in sins as most men believe and I see no great reason to doubt of it and 't is my opinion that neither all Sinners nor all Schismaticks that are truly such must be sent to the Mines or to the Galleys In brief God will make a difference between Sinners at the day of Judgment and I do believe that the Governours of Churches both Civil and Ecclesiastical should make some difference between them here In the mean time I would not be thought either to excuse or encourage unjustifiable Separations I would that the sinfulness of such Separation should be laid open with all its just aggravations and that all just means be used by the Ministers of the Gospel to prevent and hinder it yea and something by the Magistrate too but if Separation cannot be prevented I mean such as proceeds upon probable but not concluding reasons by those endeavours it must be endured an inconvenience being more eligible than a mischief and many things are and must be suffered in all societies that are not nor ought not to be approved Such was divorce in the Jewish Commonwealth and some things else in that and other societies of men If it be said that the Church of England doth not impose any thing upon its members by meer authority as the Church of Rome doth nor doth it force them to resign their reason to naked will and pleasure nor command belief of those notorious falshoods which that imperious and Apostate Synagogue of Satan doth I answer 't is readily granted and we bless God for it that this Church doth impose nothing that is apparently and grosly false it commands no Idolatrous Worship no opinions contrary to the common sense of mankind no invocation of Saints Prayers for the dead no Pilgrimages to Shrines no ridiculous or sottish Superstitions but though it impose nothing grosly false foolish or Superstitious yet some men think and I know not how to confute them that it imposes some things dubious uncertain and unnecessary from which the Clergy cannot dissent but thereby they shut themselves out of their office and become uncapable of exercising their Ministry with the countenance and protection of the Laws And if the Laity doubt the truth of any of its Impositions and do publish their doubts and will be pertinacious in the defence of them they are liable to excommunication and all that is consequent unto it and in these things this Church is peremptory and admits of no indulgence Subscribe or Preach not the Gospel speak nothing to the disparagement of any thing in the Doctrine Discipline or Liturgy or you shall be excommunicated and given up to the Devil Thus it speaks and this is its Language I do easily grant that this Church pretends not to Infallibility as the Church of Rome doth but in whatsoever it determines it avows it self not mistaken or deceived And what is the difference in effect between a Church that assumes to it self the title and approbation of Infallible and a Church that says I am not mistaken in my Determinations and Impositions Suppose two persons one a Nestorian the other an Eutichian the one proposes in certain Articles his Doctrine so as confounds Christs Natures and withal tells you he is Infallible and you must subscribe to and acknowledg the truth of it or prepare your self for the Axe or the Gallows the other proposes his Doctrine so as he divides Christs Person but pretends not to be Infallible but says his Doctrine is true and he is not mistaken in it and 't is at your pleasure and in your choice either to subscribe it or prepare your self for the Mines of Peru and the Indies The Application is obvious and every one can make it without my manuduction or direction But let me not be said to defame this Church I have said already that it imposes nothing grosly and apparently false but only some things unnecessary and uncertain I will add here the penalties imposed upon those that refuse to own and acknowledg or do defame its determinations are not so severe nor sanguinary as in the Roman Church nor peradventure so certainly and severely executed but whether the peremptory imposing things doubtful controverted useless and unnecessary upon the legal and established penalties be not tyrannical and imperious would deserve a little consideration Why must all Ministers be obliged to subscribe to all things in the 39. Articles Liturgy and Book of Ordination as containing nothing contrary to the Word of God Why must they subscribe the 20th Article concerning the power of the Church to ordain Rites and Ceremonies Why must they assent to the 8th Article where 't is said that the Athanasian Creed ought throughly to be received and believed why must the salvation of Infants being baptized and dying before the commission of actual sin be acknowledged as certain by the Word
old Phrase the King and Parliament and the Governours of this Church This argument were good if the wisdom of the Nation were infallible or it were impossible they could be mistaken but till that be proved I feel not the weight of it 'T is the Popish argument the Doctor knows and was pressed against the Reformation by the Romanists I venerate authority and am not willing to suspect the wisdom of it but I must openly profess than I am much more moved by the proofs that they make of the wisdom of their Determitions than by their bare Authoritative Assertions I value the ancient Fathers and Councils but 't is not for what they say but for what they prove And the like I do say of more modern Determinations and he is a stranger in History as well as Experience that doth not observe that many Laws and Constitutions are more the effects of Interest Pride Passion and Revenge than of Wisdom Justice and Righteousness The Determinations and Constitutions of the Council of Trent are a sufficient proof hereof and I wish the same might not be too truly said of some of the more ancient and venarable Councils yea and of some Laws that are of much later date than the latest of them Pag. the â— 19th the Doctor quotes these words of Mr. B. in his Answer to his Sermon How oft have I told you saith Mr. B. that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors but I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. Or not truly called 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor For says the Dr. one or other of these he thinks most if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under and consequently that the people may separate from them That Mr. B. doth think so he endeavours to prove because if the people judg their Ministers unworthy or incompetent he allows them liberty to withdraw and separate 'T is a hard case if people that have an ignorant drunken and malignant sapless Teacher may not go to the next Congregation yea or to a Nonconformist that is a man of better abilities and a better conversation without being reputed Schismaticks and methinks no man of pâ—ety and that knows how much mens graces and virtues are actuated by serious lively and vigorous preaching and how they languish and dwindle under that which is dry trifling luke-warm and unserious should doubt of it But sai h the Dr. p. 1 2. God saith Mr. B. in nature and Scriptu e hath given the people that consenting power antecedent to the Prince's which none can take from them I cannot tell how to believe that God hath given any Prince or Governour of Churches a greater power over their people than Parents have over their children in the choice of Employments or disposals in Marriage A Father may propose an Employment or Match to his Son or Daughter but he may not impose them against their own consent as is generally acknowledged Again if in such cases they chuse amiss and to their apparent danger they may for bid them and thus much Magistrates may and ought to do but whether they may impose against the consent of the people seems to me not so clear as some men imagine And this is all that Mr. B. desires which might be granted and the right of Patrons preserved too for ought that I can see But the Dr. adds ibid. Mr. B. makes the people judg of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers in case incompetent Ministers be set over the people though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom or only the tenth part it is no Schism saith he but a duty for those that are destitute to chuse those that they judg most competent and 't is a duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiors to perform their Office to such people that desire it Let me beg leave to ask the Reverend Dr. whether there can be such a thing as an incompetent Pastor set over a people If he grants it as sure he cannot deny it I would ask him again what the people must do in such a case if he says they must complain and use regular ways for his removal I would again enquire what if they be poor and not able to bear the charge of such a proceeding or if after all endeavours they cannot remove him and I will assure him 't is no easie matter to remove an incompetent Pastor what must they do must they starve at home or be treated as Separatists if they go abroad to hear a Dissenter that Preaches in the Neighbourhood If it be said that the people are no capable judges of a Ministers abilities and so the Dr. intimates in several places of his Book page 123 124. passim I answer the Learned Dr. allows Separation and thinks it duty too in certain cases viz. 1. In case of Idolatrous worship 2. In case of false Doctrine imposed instead of true And 3. In case things indifferent be made necessary to salvation page 213.214 I desire to learn from this worthy Dr. whether the people in these cases are bound to separate or whether the obligation lies only on the Pastors if it lyes on both and on both it must lie or else the people are bound to be damned then the people must judg and if they may judg in these cases I know not why they may not make a judgment of the competency of their Ministers He is an incompetent Pastor that Preaches false Doctrine or Heresie that commends and practises Idolatry and makes things indifferent necessary to salvation and in these the people may judg by the Doctors own confession and if they may judg in these they may judg in some other cases for ought that I can perceive In the mean time I am not about to deny that the people at least of them are ignorant injudicious and rash and do many times censure and condemn the innocent and worthy All that I design is to make it a little evident that there is a mean betwixt the two extremes and that should be enquired after The people are neither the wisest among men nor are they a herd of beasts In some things they may and must judg in others it may be denied them But the Dr. proceeds p. 123. and says Mr. B. bids the people not think that he is persuading them to make no difference but after he hath set aside the utterly insufficient and heretical of which the people are admirable Judges he lays down this general rule Any one whose Ministry is such as tendeth more to destruction than edification is not to be owned and consequently to be separated from And in good earnest is no difference to be made of Ministers then farewell all lawful as well as unlawful Separation The people are not Judges of Insufficiency or Heresie and therefore must swallow all that they propound