divided into Provinces If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country it will not prove that they were under his Charge Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them and all their Churches or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them and so that he was more than president in their meeting when they came together about the Affairs of the Church These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira and these of Maraeotis And 1. Epiphamus saith that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches especially those of Maraeotis Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them That this was an Act of Charity not of Episcopal Authority appeareth because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches not a part of Athanasiu's Church and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis which Athanasius saith were subject to him Next Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village Ans. Maraeotis or Mâ—ria as Ptolomy calleth it is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉 I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake which it seems had then few Churches and Christians and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline with these of Alexandria being very near to it their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator Subjâ—cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself because men have set up such Bishops but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops which is not done by such an Argument as this wherefore I deny the Drs third Consequence that he draweth from this passage p. 254. to wit That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belongeth to him There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meetâ—ng in Diverse Assemblies I meddle not with it is nothing against us whether it weâ—e so or otherwise Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth is out of Theodoret which he saith is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Poweâ— he saith he had the pâ—storal charge of 800. he should have said 80 Churches and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony but without cause for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ and which had been kept more intire in former Ages 2. It is much suspected by learned Men that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name as Leontius saith which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches but that he had been Pastor in them the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth 4. But whatever be in that this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power as to place or bounds but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop Sect. 7. Before I proceed I shall return to examine the Doctor 's Allegations for Diocesan Power p. 230. which I above referred to this place He asserteth That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it to wit That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place as Bishop and dischargeth the like to be done for the future Lucian saith that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and several Passages to this purpose To all which I. A. by denying the Consequence Cyprian as I cited above did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all But it was solely in them even so that the Presbyters especially that some of them as the Dr. himself states the Case might not do it without Cyprian doth not prove that the Presbyters and whole Church were under his Government It amounteth to no more but this that in a Presbytery regularly constituted especially where they have devolved the Power of calling and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed and constant Moderator it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline without the rest and particularly without Consulting him whom they have so chosen Beside I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far as afterward many did He was a holy and meek Man but such may be a little too high To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage that the Dr. citeth sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed in that not only some Presbyters took it on them without a regular Meeting of the whole but even Deacons medled with it which was out of their way His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church is wholly out of the way for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop proveth as little as the rest for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office which was not from the beginning Cyprians appointing some to visit when he could not do it by reason of Persecution neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their
Work by Delegates when they are at ease nor doth it prove that these did any thing without the Presbyters that Cyprian citeth tu es Petrus and whatsoever you shall bind c. was to very good purpose when some Martyrs invaded the Discipline of the Church and i proveth that as Christ gave the power of the Keys to Peter and the rest of the Apostles not to the People so he had given it to Cyprian and the rest of the Presbyters not to the Martyrs It had been well if tu es Petrus had never been more abused He saith indeed that the Church hath ever been governed by Bishops but the Dr. must prove that he meaneth by Bishops alone as they are distinct and separate from the other Presbyters The rest that followeth that the Bishop is to govern and give Account to God that he is in the place of Christ that a Church is a People united to a Bishop do all agree very well either with a Congregational Bishop or Minister or a Presbyterian Moderator acting in parity with other Presbyters and yet these are the Herculean Arguments from Antiquity that men make such a noise with Sect. 8. I now proceed with the Dr. to the third Thing that he had undertaken to wit to prove That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church this Last he supposeth that he hath proved is no devisiâ—g a new species of Churches nor repugnant to any Institution of Christ. To prove which Sect. 11. he bringeth some of Mr. B's Concessions which I neither yield nor will vindicate He bringeth also some Arguments of Mr. B's to prove that the ordinary governing part of the Apostolick Office was setled in all Ages Wherefore I must for a little leave the Dr. and Answer these Arguments of Mr. B's But first I take notice that it is a Mistake in the Dr. and Mr. B. too to call the governing part of the Apostle's Office ordinary For 1. That is to suppose the Thing in question to wit that it was continued in the Church that they governed and preached is true but that Officers that after were imployed in governing or preaching can claim that power as succeeding to the Apostles in any part of their Office and without other warrant we deny The Apostles governed and preached by another Commission from Christ than men now do and that both as to the manner of it the one being immediate the other mediate and as to the matter of it their Commission warranted them to do many Acts in governing and preaching that others have no power to do as giving Authoritative rules to all Churches where they came ordaining and censureing every where going up and down to Preach every where without a call from any Church without being fixed any where this power no Man can now pretend to Wherefore I say that Minâ—sters Teâ—ch and Rule the Church not by vertue of Apostolick Office or any part of it committed to them but by vertue of anoâ—her Office distinct from that of the Apostles which they receive by their Ordination 2. It is evident that the Apostles governing Power was not ordinary because there was an ordinary governing Power in the Church even in the Apostles times distinct from that of the Apostles and exercised by other Men tho' in subordination to the Apostles governing Power The Presbytery did then Ordain they did also Excommunicate as was above shewed and the Apostles directed them so to do and sometimes concurred with them and sometimes they acted without them Sect. 9. Let us now hear Mr. B s. Arguments 1. We read saiâ—h he Christ direct pt 3. Question 56. p. 831. Of the sâ—â—lâ—ng of that form viz. general Officers as well as particular but we never read of any Absolution Discharge or Cessation of the Institution Ans. 1. If this Argument have any force it will prâ—ve the continuance of all the extraordinary Offices that ever were in the Church Prophets Evangelists Workers of Miracles c. For we read not that ever they were discharged Ans. 2. It is enough to Abolish and Discharge that Institution that this Office was setled in the persons of some Men immediately by Jesus Christ himself and after their decease He neither put others in their room immediately by himself nor gave the Church any hint that such a thing should be done but instead of that he hath given sufficient direction for propogating other Officers in the Church in all Ages Argument 2. If we affirm a Cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of Mutabillity as setling one form of Government for one Age only and no longer Ans. I hope Mr. B. will not say that a change in Gods Works yea or Institutions doth argue mutability in God are not all the Old Testament Institutions now changed Were not Prophets Evangelists Men gifted with divers tongues c. His Institutions and yet now ceased and no other proof can be given for their Cessation then what we give for the ceasing of Apostles Neither do we say they are ceased without proof that they were by immediate Commission from God that that now cannot be pretended to and that the Lord hath hinted no other way of continuing such an Office in his House nor that it should be continued is abundant proof of this Cessation Argument 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastors Sacraments c. and to say that they were but for an Age. Ans. There is not the least shew of reason for this for their Gospel Institutions have more abiding Warrant then Immediate Commission given by Christ to some to Administer them Argument 4. It was General Officers that Christ promised to be with to the end of the World Maâ—h 28. 20. Ans. 1. If this Argument prove any thing it proveth too much to wit that only General Officers have that promise which I hope Mr. B. will not say Ans. 2. It was spoken to General Officers but the promise is not made to them alone but to all that should be Imployed in the work of Teaching and Baptizing And these being particularly here mentioned will prove that there shall be Teachers and Baptizers to the end of the World but not that there shall be General Officers as the Metropolitans c. that Mr. B. dreameth of to the end of the World. Sect. 10. The Dr. to improve these Arguments of Mr. Bâ— to his purpose joineth with him the consent of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave successors in the care of Government of the Churches Aus Who doubteth of that but the question is to whom did the Apostles commit this care we say to the Pastors in Common he saith to Diocesan Bishops this we deny that it can be proved either from any Writing or Deed of the Apostles or from the consent of the Ages next after them that the Bishops were looked on as succeeding to the Appostles in
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the arch-Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
plead against himself For he saith p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony that it be done sub populi Assistentis conscientia that by their presence either their Faults might be published or their good Acts commended that so it might appear to be a just and lawful Ordination which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all And after Cyprian saith It came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolick practice that a Bishop should be chosen plebe presente not by the Votes of the people says the Doctor One would think all this time the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause and yet will out-face plain light to defend it Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes if their presence their Testimony commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate their knowledge and assistance can consist with Patronage and obtruding of Ministers on the people as a Master of a Flock setteth a Sheepherd over his Sheep it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor 's Conclusion If these do not import the peoples consent to be required and so amount to Election let any indifferent Reader judge It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power but maketh it a Divine Right and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust and unlawful Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgment there would be few Ministers in the Church of England and so more cause for separation than he is aware of but I do not improve his Testimony to that end The Doctor p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad and chuse the good and yet hath the Brow to say That this is no more then their Testimony but if Testimony be chusing we require no more but Testimony It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people to see what they had to say against them and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors For 1. This was never declared to be necessary and appointing Governours unjust or unlawful without it as it is in our case 2. We have proved that the people have power of Suffrage and of chusing which was not granted by Severus That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo is such an Argument against us as sheweth a very weak cause especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing For it is Election we speak of not Ordination in which we confess the people have no hand neither doth Origen say That this Ordination could proceed without the peoples being more concerned about the person than standing by while he was Ordained and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is p. 318. That the people upon this Assuming the power of Elections caused great Disturbance and disorders in the Church To this I answer in general 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election whether on Christ's Institution or any subsequent ground if the latter let him shew it if the former it is improper to say they assumed what was ever their due The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people after that priviledge had been out of their hand for some time 2. There is no Institution of Christ but inconveniences may follow on it as long as sinful men have the managing of it Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops and Presbyters Yea of civil power in the hands of Magistrates yea of power of Election in the hands of Patrons It were easie to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose Will the Doctor thence conclude that all these should be abolished 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced as following on the peoples Election of their Pastors as of most other things The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years that this power of the people lasted unviolated and that through all the Christian Churches I do not deny but more there might be but when so few occurr as observable to a man of so great reading it saith more against the Doctors design than all these Instances say for it 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people and leading them into Factions and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy in the degenerate State of the Church and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds and were in a mean condition so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur and imparity than against popular Elections As is evident from Ammian Marcellin whom the Doctor citeth as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome when the Contest was about Damasus where he sheweth That they aspired to that Bishoprick with all their might considering how the Bishop was enriched Oblationibus Matronarum rode in Chariots were Gorgeously attired fared sumptuously and saith They might have shuned these inconveniences had they despised this grandeur and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces whose humble carriage poor fare and mean habit commended them to God and good men 5. It is worth our Observation that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ when the Church was in her Integrity and had not degenerated as she did afterward 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances to wit the Magistrate ought to suppress them and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly as they take the Sacraments though peoples priviledge from them that walk unworthy of them When inconveniences fall in we must take God's way not our own to set things right again Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all the Doctors Alledgeances on this head but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were For the â—st Instance the Disorder at Antioch it was not as he representeth it about the chusing of a new Bishop to a vacant place but about putting an Arian Bishop at least supposed to be so into the place of Eustathius who had long been peaceably in that place and regularly chosen but was injuriously deposed by the Arians Neither was Eustathius chosen at last as the Doctor saith but rid out the Storm and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Hereticks And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose The next Instance is at Caesarea The person that carried the Election was Basil the Magistrates and the worst of the people opposing him Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth and it cannot be justified but cannot infer
reckoned among them Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy at his pleasure we can bear it In this we are Murus Aheneus in the Poets Seâ—se Sect. 13. He telleth us p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson the Foâ—nder as he maketh him of the Independent way who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer He should have told us who these are It is true they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too by denying us all Church Privileges for not submitting to the Impositions and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances where we can have them in his way but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice This Discourse against the Independent Separation I meddle not with and therefore pass over all that he saith from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages What Mr. Câ—n saith p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation is so far True that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies doth inferr on them who act conscientiously that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church than own the one or use the other And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions a Word the Dr. is very angry with because unordained men were not suffered to Preach when and where they listed is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions when they are Excluded the Church for not using Humane Ceremonies In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture no imposing in the other That is imposed to be done which is without warrant yea condemned in Scripture Such mean â—rtifices the Dr. reacheth at that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill in the VVorship of God. p. 58 he saith Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience Who ever said otherwise or can say otherwise unless they would first burn their Bibles We never made Conscience the Rule it must be guided and ruled by Scripture What he saith of Popular Government let them answer it who are concerned He saith Humorous and Factious People will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions This Title of Mr. A's Book is a great Eye-sore to him but he should consider that on the other hand an Imperious Superstitious Clergy that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance in dispite of the Apostles Words will always be Imposing and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious He saith the Principles of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead men into Confusion Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions are more like to lead Divines into Confusion in managing their polemick Discourses Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience Hath Conscience no use but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will or what the Act of Parliament saith We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience as the Dr. is but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience is liker to lead Men into Atheism than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion Let Conscience then have Liberty where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion where they that profess Conscience are otherwise sober and peaceable and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience It is a more innocent thing where it is rightly dealt with than the Dr. taketh it to be and we think it is more to be regarded than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising It is false that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants as to the pretence of Conscience nor they the Anabaptists For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes because of their Conscience Sect. 14. He telleth us Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren with being the occasion of an inundation of Error by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience I am far from justifying that Toleration which the Independants pleaded for and which by their means some say was used in our late times of Distraction Then there was no King in our Israel All Error should be opposed Gross Error punished and restrained by force But will it hence follow that we must not have leave to Dissent even from those things that the Church imposeth without Warrant from the Lord All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth p. 59 60 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration The Vniformity in Religion that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of is not to be understood of Words in Prayers and Humane Ceremonies for would they not then have first setled that way at home but of Doctrine and Discipline and Worship so far as commanded by Christ. Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates that were between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship but what was commanded They left the Church for supposed Corruptions which were none of their personal fault nor were they put under a necessity of approving them VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin if we should do them But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates p. 73 74. The 1st is That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look on Separation from it as Sin notwithstanding its Corruptions This he thinketh he hath so proved that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed and with what measure of clearness let others judge also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters hath been shewed The 2d Conclusion is That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church to go so far as they were able So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful is
make a part of these Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers and frequent clashings of them in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies And tho' I am far from the opinion of them who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author whom I now dispute with yet in this particular it not only may but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government This being no essential part of Church-Government nor instituted but a Circumstance of it determinable by necessity and conveniency On the same Score where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with it might act Independently and be blameless 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily yet is not this meeting together but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers that maketh one particular Church For 1. One Congregation may encrease to that number that one place cannot contain them and yet continue one Congregation till they be regularly divided Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large as all the People cannot always travel to one place the Pastor or Pastors of the Church may well have places more convenient for some of them where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them sometimes as in Chapels of Ease and yet they all continue one particular Church 3. It is a frequent case with Families that but a part of them at one time can leave the House to wait on publick Ordinances and the rest at another time yet are they one Congregation 4. In a time of Persecution where the Flock is but small and might easily be contained in one House the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such as it may be needful that but a part of them should come together at once and that by turns as we are necessitated at this time to do This doth not make divers Congregations All this considered we are little concerned whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Chuâ—ch in a City or more Whether those called Churches did meet in one place or not as long as the one Party cannot prove that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by it self nor the other that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one and over their Presbyters Sect. 7. Before I part with this dâ—scourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches I take notice of his confident Asserting p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government so suddenly from its first institution even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon yet this change could not be The same thing he had asserted before and I have answered it Praef. Sâ—ct 9. His further considerations to enforce what he had said are not weighty to wit That Government is so nice and tender a Point thâ—t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it would certainly have complained This he enlargeâ—h upon But I answer 1. It may be they did that they did not is not proved by the silenâ—e of History A Negative Argument here is not concludent especially considering the Lameâ—ess of the History of the first Centuries and what we have of it is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation 2. He doth not consider that Men might Sleep while others were robbing them as Christ foretold Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church which then was no Lordly Dominion but a painful Ministery or Serviâ—e and made unpleasant by the cross Humors of them that needed it most was not then so â—ice and tender a Point to honest and well-meaning Presbyters as it is now to our aspiring Church-men they were Men of another stamp they were willing to lie by if the work were done and they might think that others might do it better than they this is not to justifie them but to take off mens wonder at this and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily by degrees wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves who were not so fore-seeing as they should have been nor so tinctured with Ambition as they though other ways good and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this when we consider that this thing was not done suddenly but by insensible steps in the space of three or four Hundred Years Cyprian whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter lived in the third Century even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was setled What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters shall be answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Section where it is more proper Also what he here saith against popular Election is to be considered in its place because I would not confound Subjects so divers SECT III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful THE Second Plea for Separation that the Learned Dr. considereth is the Vnlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be 1. Primitive 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ 3. That its Discipline as exercised in England doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches All this he manageth Sect. 8 c. I might shun this whole Debate having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation except in so far as we are required to own it But because we look on this Episcopacy as unlawful to be used or owned I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Auther of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops c. and the defence of that Piece under the Title of Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times which might supersede all that I have to say and shall make me say the less referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books yet lest there should be an hiatus in this Disâ—ourse I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Doctoâ— Sâ—ct 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government which the Dr. disproveth p. 242 243. being singular himself can best defend it wherefore I leave it and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned first asserting a few things that may clear our way 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church as distinguished from her Servants the Deacons Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues those are the Magistrates
Apostles Others that it is wholly indifferent and may be received or not as is thought most expedient in several times and places and some of these say this is to be determined by the Church Others by the Magistrate This Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum asserteth but is very uncertain whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter One of the most Learned of our Adversaries Dr. Hammond holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion to wit that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church appointed by Christ or ordained by the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament and their Office but a device of Men or a constitution of the Church This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England the owning of which is required of us that we may judge aright of it we must have a true Idea of it and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ practised in the primitive Church with general approbation or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it First The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to and distinct Office from other Presbyters as appeareth not only from the power he hath and they have not and acts of Church-power reserved only to him but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter And yet further because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates or Curates and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters People and Flocks in the Diocess Secondly The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters Thirdly He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters Fourthly He may delegate this Power to whom he will whether Men Ordained to the Ministry or any of the people so that by this Delegation a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People Fifthly This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly They are not chosen to this Office by the Church but by the Magistrate and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a Bâ—shop as this in Scripture or Antiquity all that they say from either for an Episcopacy is short of the thing in question and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy unless they prove this Episcopacy Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered and I think never shall and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it The first shall be ad hominem against our learned Author By this Author's Doctrine there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters was Instituted Allowed or Exercised in the Church Ergo according to him it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it The Antithesis I prove If such a ground there be it must lie in one of these three if any asserters of it can add a fourth we shall quit this Argument either Christs appointing it in Scripture or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office or the practice of the Church shewing us what was Christs allowance But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter For the first he denyeth such an Institution asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel this is the basis of his Irenicum The second he never had the confidence to assert neither is the least hint in all the Scripture that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power For the third he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times or any way allowed Sect. 8. Our second Argument is There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church that are mentioned in the Bible neither in their Name nor Office nor Power nor Work nor Qualifications nor Respect or Obedience due to them nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered whence I thus Argue If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church he would have hinted some thing about this distinction but this he hath not done Ergo c. The first proposition I prove first Because this was needful for these distinct Officers that each might know his work And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters all these belonging to the Bishop 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church in their Names Qualifications Work and Office as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2 9. Also between Preaching Elders and those that are only Ruling Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters let them do it I hope none of them will say that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he either by affording him more respect or maintenance I suppose our Bishops will rather
part with the Patrimony of this Text then with their Titles Grandeur and Revenues Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture and we can shew an identity in them And first for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus Bishops It is a groundless fancy of some that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia for this is said without any shew of proof to serve a turn Besides that they are called the Elders of the Church not Churches as even in the prelatical Stile Diocesan districts should be called And it is called the Flock not Flocks and the Church of God not the Churches of God that they were to take heed to and the haste that the Apostle then was in considering the short time and long journey that he had before him was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters Also it is most clear Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications for a Bâ—shop must be Blameless if they were not one this reason should have neither force nor sence which were Blasphemy to averr it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning Sect. 10. In the next place Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them how consistently with their other principles I enquire not and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture Thirdly for their power if Bishops ordained so did Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops they must prove it If Bishops had rule over the people were over them so were Presbyters 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people admonish them and watch for their Souls I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers and are over them Fourthly Their Work is the same as is clear both from the places last cited and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Where taking heed to feeding and over-seeing in the Greek acting the part of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church are set down by themselves 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly for Obedience Reverence Maintenance or any thing else that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered a Man must then put force upon his reason or be strangely swaâ—ed by prejudice who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament that is above the Presbyters of the Church or hath jurisdiction over them Sect. 11. Argument third The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced Ergo no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church The consequence I prove first Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ and not tell us of them all Let our brethren if they can give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this Secondly The consequence can yet less be questioned if we considâ—r that not only an Officer is left out and the Church left without a hint concerning him but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend He who can believe this his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop some say they are reducible to Apostles With what face can wise men alledge this Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary and temporary appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel and planting Churches and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer Diocesans have their limitted charges Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles not as being absolutely such but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostlâ—s but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church Secondly They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office as should be afterward thought convenient What may not men devise in the Church that take on them thus to add to or diminish from Christs Institutions and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops and this with as little ground as the former though some learned Men have so dreamed as Estius and Doctor Hammon Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant but the absurdity of this fancy will appear First If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters which is an indecency unâ—uitable to the Apostles Exactness if my Lord Bishop weâ—e here meant I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles and are extraordinary Officers because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles which Argument will as well hold here Secondly The work of the Bishop that we speak of which discriminateth him from the Presbyter is not to Teach but to Rule Therefore others as Calvin by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers and instructeth them and others in the truth and defendeth it against Heresies such as are Divinity Professors in Universities others understand Catechists But it is evident that it cannot with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps 1
them own such an Office in the Church The first Testimony that I bring is that of Jerome who giveth his Judgment of this matter not Obiâ—er but of set purpose as that which was his setled Opinion and that oftner than â—nce In his Epistle to Euagrius where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent that preferred Deacons to Presbyters i. e. saith he to Bishâ—ps but sheweth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same for which he citeth Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth clanget tuba Evangâ—lâ—j filius toniâ—ru c. and so citeth 2 Joh. ver 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath shewed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest he telleth that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty Greatness or Meanness the difference of Cities where they are sive Romae sive Eâ—gâ—bij sive Constantinopoli c. they are ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii and sheweth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons saith nothing of Presbyters because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop that is they are the same What may seem to make against our cause in this Epistle is that he saith quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum which he saith was ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet which was done saith he in Alexandria a Marci Temporibus This may well be undeâ—stood of a Moderator of their Meetings who had power of Convening the Presbyters least every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure and so breed confusion and it must be so understood not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle Another passage is quid enim facit Episcopus praeâ—er Ordinationem quod non facit Presbyter Which cannot be understood of Ordination or sâ—le Ordination of Presbyters for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse but Ordination here must be ordering of their Meetings which is the part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderatâ—r One might also alledge that in the Writings of this learned Father a passage Obiter set down is not to be taken notice of in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of hâ—s Discourse tho' they be â—nâ—â—nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings and cited also by Dr. Stillingflâ—et Ireniouâ—â— p. 278. Itaqâ—e ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia in meâ—â—e mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum meinor Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom câ—mment in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject and asserteâ—h the same opinion as before Idem ergo saith he Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae alluding to the Schism mentioned 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular as some fansy Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret ut Schismatum semina tolerentur and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he citeth many Scriptures as above and sheweth that Bishop denoteth the Office Presbyter the Age. He citeth also Heb. 13. 17. Ibi saith he equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur And after he sheweth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate And in conclusion of that discourse making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth saith videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit What Jerom saith toto orbe decretum est is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council for no such Decree can be produced but that this Remedy of Schism in many places began then to be thought on and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the Fourth Century when Jerom wrote And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's but of Mans inventing and accordingly it succeeded for it proved worse than the Disease bringing in Tyranny and overturning Christ's Institution and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it as Jerom saith Man gave a Being to it and Satan improved it to carry on his designs The omnis eccleâ—iae cura that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa which he saith was the way of the Gospel and therefore either we must make Jerom say That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution and contrary to Apostolick practice which will make the way of the Primitive Church and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church not of the solitude of it in one Man excluding the rest of the Presbyters that he had a special inspection though he might not exercise Discipline by himself Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom is Ep. ad Heliodorum Fol. mihi 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter and shewing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist they have claves Regni Coelorum quodammodo diem judicij indicant and then addeth Illi Presbytero si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose Ep. ad Demet Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days into the Hands of Presbyters and not into the Hands of Bishops only whatever Priority they had above the other It is worth our Observation that several Popish Writers as zealous for Prelacy as ours are confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose that they find no way to Answer but to Condemn him of Error in this matter And Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. c. 15.
confesseth that Sedulius Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam In Comment in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom because he was a Presbyter and no Bishop I hope they will allow us the like liberty to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them who themselves were Bishops and then let them reckon their Gain when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll. Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications and other Censures saith they are done in the Assemblies and that praesident probati quique seniores Clem. Alexandr Stromat lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common and every Assembly had its president with power of Discipline Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century when no little Deviation had been made from the right way yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked quia sine alicujus fratris consilio But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause was approved quia cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processit Ambros Ep. ad Syagrium And even Cyprian as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy as that age could bear Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine as a Witness of this Truth Ep. 19. ad Hieron Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit He maketh the Bishop Major not Lord over the Presbyter and even that Majority was but by the Custom of the Church not divine Ordinance and a custom that had now obtained was not always Also lib. quaest com he proveth from 1 Tim. 3. Bâ—shop and Presbyter to be one and saith quâ—d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter and this Oâ—eness he further sheweth because Bishops such as then were to wit in the beginning of the Fifth Century when the Order of the Church was much changed called the Presbyters Compresbyteri but never called the Deacons Condiaconi Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office but Deacons being distinct from them both The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3. homil 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt sola quippe ordinatione superiores illâ— sunt Bellarm. saith that Primasius Theophilactus and Oecumenius on that Text teach the same things and almost in the same words And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century the last in the Tenth or Eleventh The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this is not worth taking notice of to wit Chrysost. meaneth that Presbyters have jurisdiction as Bishops have but only by Commission from the Bishop This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse which is to shew an Identity of them as they are in themselves What he alledgeth out of this Citation that a Bishop may ordain not a Presbyter the learned Father's expression will not bear for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge or that the difference between them was only in order or precedency not in Power or any Authority or that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution but it can never signifie the power of ordaining for then Christ who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said potestate ordinandi not Ordinatione Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations which tho they be not â—oncludent in themselves being but humane Testimonies yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church The 1 is That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters lib. 4. dist 24. liter I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons because the primitive Church had only these and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment the rest were after appointed by the Church And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop Arch-Bishop c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins Horum autem disoretio saith he a gentilibus introducta videtur Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy The 2 Consideration is That the Waldenses Albigenses Wickliff and his Followers and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrinâ—s that the Protestants now profess were of a Parity among Presbyters and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops This is confessed by Medina and is not denyed by Bellarm and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders Priests and Deacons and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops where their Religion was suppressed The third thing that I offer to be considered is The observation of Spanhemius a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church in his Epitom Isagâ—g ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii as Tertul. de pudicitia c. 25. or only a reverence to their age and their conversing with the Apostles and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition SECT IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple on the forementioned grounds I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned to wit to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches in the times of Cyprian and Augustine and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations 1. That his phrase is ambiguous that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth
in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
the Government of Churches we deny not tho' we deny that they had that Office or any part of it but then the question is whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them had that Government by themselves or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters unless the Dr. prove the former he speaketh not to the point None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself Iren. p. 308. to wit That not Bishops alone but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian Ierom and Ignatius Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters as some alledge And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted or was read in the Ancient Church We do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop and in other things to be observed in our progess In order to makeing out what he alledgeth he proposeth two things to be enquired into Sect. 12. First What power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops have â—ver them For the first he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church and that because they have a place in the convocation where rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and forms of Service are determined How small a matter this is tho' the Dr. aggravateth it I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbyassed and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation it consisteth of two Houses in the upper House are only Bishops and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing they can reject it that is 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel have no more power then any other 25 of near 9000 so many Churchs are reckoned in England take to themselves as much power as all these Then for the lower House of the Convocation it is made up of Presbyters indeed as the Dr. saith but many if not most of them such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have as Deans Arch-deacons and other Cathedral Officers here also the Presbyters are bereaved of that party of power that is their due besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted often not above two or four in a Diocess If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops and their Creatures in the Convocation let any judge He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination or giving Orders as he calleth it to wit That by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to asist the Bishop and are to examine the persons to be ordained or the Bishop in their presence and to join the Imposition of hands Here also their power is swallowed up for all the rest have equal power with these four yea with the Bishop himself which is wholly taken out of their hands and managed at the Bishops pleasure who chuseth these four beside that this is really if ever practised the person is usually examined or said to be so by the Bishops Chaplain and the Bishop layeth his hands on him Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topicks The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter to wit Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency saith the Dr. had both these been if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop A goodly Argument some think it a great Impertinency and Boldness too in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction as to any part of Church Power between a Presbyter and a Bishop His next topick is the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office and greatness of the Charge calleth them Pastors that they are to Teach Premonish and Feed and provide for the Lords Family c. This indeed implyeth their Preaching Power but there is not a word of Ruling Power which the Lord joyned with it but the Bishops do separate them and for all this saying over their cold â—esson at the Solemnity the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by vertue of this Ordination without License so that their Ruleing Power is taken away and their Preaching Power restraineâ— at the Bishops pleasure This is a crossing of Christs Institution who made them equal neither is it any more wonder that the Bishops practice should cross his own Exhortation then that he should cross the Scripture read on that occasion His third Topick is the ordained Persons Oath to miâ—ister Word and Sacraments and Discipline as this Realm hath received the same Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned but the following words shew the meaning for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers into whose hands he put it but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less then I say when he saith That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop I hope the Reader will by this time see that the Presbyters in the Church of England have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government than that which Christ Instituted or the purer primitive times knew Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth is Sect. 13. to shew what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration which he placeth in Government Ordination and Censures and he saith the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind that she did believe so I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it but the contrary I have proved above wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves and therefore there was no Bishop but Bishâ—ps and Presbyters were one but as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be setled in the several Churchs whom the Apostles setled some sooner some later if which saith he we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus And by this he would reconcile the
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
contained in express words The Papists are dull if they cannot out of this principle hammer out a Pope as well as the Doctor can frame a Bishop or Arch-Bishop This Inference as thus loosly set down is no way to be admitted because Christ hath not provided for the unity and preservation of his Church by leaving it to Mens will or wholly to their reason either but by his own Institutions to be wisely managed by the Officers that he hath appointed in his house Unity is then to be preserved Divisions and Heresies to be prevented by the painful and faithful preaching of the Gospel by Christs Ministers in their several particular Charges by private and publick Instructions and Admonitions By their joynt Concurrence in censuring and drawing out the Sword of Discipline against stubborn Offenders These are Christs Institutions and will be effectual when he is pleased to bless them and this blessing we are to expect on his own appointed means not on mens Devices But we deny that Unity in the Church is to be preserved in any way that men in their Wisdom think fit and particularly that it is to be preserved by setting up Arch-Bishops and Bishops in the Church These being none of Christ's means appointed for that end It is often seen that means thus devised of Men by Crossing of Christ's Institution either fail of their end or by mending one evil make a worse Peace and Unity is sometimâ—s and in the case in hand procured to the Church with the bearing down of Piety and shutting out of Purity Sect. 5. I dislike one Particle of that Definition that he giveth of the National Church of England diffusive p. 299. to wit he saith It is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of pastors and people agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm Had he put the word of God insteâ—d of the Laws of this Realm I should have fully assented to this description But against that Particle I have two Exceptions 1. The Civil Law is accidental to the Church and is neither a constituent part of its essence nor a necessary adjunct of it The Church hath been without it and I hope he will not say That if the Laws were taken away the Church is unchurched for that 2. This makeâ—h the Church of England a variable and mutable thing as the Laws of men are for if Presbytery if Anabaptism If Independency Popery Socinianism and what sort of Religion you can name either as to Faith or Worship or Government were established by Law They that are of that way should then be the Church of England which is not only absurd but a dangerous notion in such a critical time as this I hope the Doctor did not design a fair retreat by this if Popery which God forbid should come to be establiâ—hed by Law The Papists were the Church of England and all the Ties that men are under to the Church of England by theâ—r Oaths and Subscriptions should oblige them to be Papists and all the True Sons of the Church must turn with the Law as the Weather-cock doth with the Wind This is like to be pleasing Doctrin to many But I pâ—rceive the Doctors design by this fine new notion is To let men see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from Papists on the one side and Dissenters on the other which makes him wonder at them who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England If Men wondred much before they may wonder far more now what is meant by the Church of England when they see her painted in so changeable colours as that she may be one thing now and another next year and another the third year and so on The Scripture placeth the Moon under the Churches Feet and the Twelve Stars Apostolick Doctrine on her Head as her cognizance and Glory but the Doctor hath advanced the Moon to her Head that she must be known by it what he will do with the Twelve Stars I know not He is more favourable to the Papists and Dissenters they are to be known by their Conformity or Nonconformity to Scripture not to the Laws of the Land But if Papists or Dissenters should happen to get the Law on their side what will that party be that is now the Church of England It seems the Doctor is fond of this notion for he hath it up again p. 300. to the question how comes it to be one National Church He answereth because it was received by the Common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey these Laws And thus he cleareth our Mists about the Church of England He had debated much with Mr. B. owning a Christian Kingdom but not a National Church but here he homologateth all that Mr. B. had said for the Parliament owning the Faith maketh a Christian Kingdom but it is some other thing that maketh a National Church to wit the Collective Body of all the Congregations of a Nation agreeing in the same Faith and Worship and Government as it is held forth in the Word of God. If the Doctor say thiâ— leaveth room for every party to call themselves the Church for all pretend to have the Word on their side I answer This is not to be denied for till the Lord cure our Divisions about truth and about his Ordinances we are not like to come to a decision of that question Who is the Church For all Congregations are parts of the Church and these that are nearest to the Scripture rule are the truest part of the Church The Apostle decided that Controversie who is the Circumcision the Dialect of some in that time for who is the Church not by the Laws of men but by the truth of God that they owned Phil. 3. 3. The Doctor hath found out a new Mark of the Church that Bâ—llarmine hath not though he hath more than enough to wit They that have the Law on their side are the Church Sect. 6. He telleth us that the representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion This is saith not of the Convocation at Westminster but of the Consent of both Convocations Here I observe 1. That the Law of the Land is so constitutive of a Church to this Author that without it there is neither diffusive nor representative Church Then what becometh of the Apostolick Church and that of the first 300 years and of the Greek Churches under the Turk yea and of the Protestant Church of France where their Prince is not only Christian but most Christian And yet his Law does not favour that Church 2. I have shewed before that the Convocation can make no Church National representative The Presbyters and Churches of the Nation being
apprehend pleaseth him without mens leave when they cannot do it with their leave It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Vniformity and not rather in Consent in the main points of Religion and loving forbearance in reference to the rest Sect. 34. The 5. is The exposing our selves to the Papists and others by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation This is plain enough yet without wronging the scope or sence it might have been thus expressed more openly We are ashamed to mend lâ—st Men should think that we once were wrong This Reason if it prove any thing will conclude against all Reformations Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's Azariah's and Josiah's time of which before This will expose us to Baal Worshippers as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time and in Q. Elizabeth's time in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead and some other things were laid aside that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other what could they say but that some of their Superstitions were at first over-lookt which now you see the Evil of and think fit to remove them What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England It will be hard to convince those of mistake who think that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them when they see how loath they are to go too far from them This Principle seemeth to make what we have done or the first Frame of the Reformation the Rule of the Reformation rather than the Word of God Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment and next to nothing compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation It is known to them who have lookt into the History of the Council of Trent that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy that was so much desired and stickled for by some His sixth Reason is The difficulty of keeping out priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against Peoples reading Scripture The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests and willing to have their Company or so unskilful that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine from that of a Protestant or to admit Ministers among them to the Discharge of that office without Trial and Testimonials Or if he suppose that when men are allowed by Law to Worship God without Ceremonies that the Law is so laid asleep that men may do what they list If I say all these things be supposed this Reason may seem to have some weight but without such a supposition it is lighter than Chaff and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions and that they are necessary to keep out Popery Enough hath been already said to lay open the fondness of this Imagination and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare when it serveth a turn After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon he distinguisheth p. 55. between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity that he meddleth with the former not the latter his reason is If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church many Ministers would change their Mind I contract but not misrepresent what he saith To this I return two things 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse is not easily understood But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Non-conformist Ministers and their People according to the Maxime Divide impera If all the People might lawfully conform and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth Lay-Communion is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds not to say Thousands of ministers many of them Eminent and most if not all of them compleatly fitted for the Work of the Gospel and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church how the Labours of all these may not be lost while the Harvest is great and the Labourers few unless it be thought that the Case is not so now and Shall they all be rendered useless rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with when it suiteth their purpose Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination yet we cannot think so of our selves and that one Principle sheweth them the greatest Schismaticks that are among Protestants for by it they unchurch most if not all the Reformed Churches and unminister all their Pastours and nullifie Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion that is joining in their Service and the use of the Ceremonies that nothing that we yet have seen is able to remove as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear He alledgeth p. 6. that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists For the sign of the Cross Mr. Baxter saith The sin if it be one in using it is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptized but the Ministers and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy To all this I answer We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old but do not for it withdraw it being the Minister's fault not Ours For Kneeling it is our own act and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it which the Church will not do or for bear the Sacrament in which it is for we utterly deny that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it neither do I see how they can and disallow other Ceremonies
for they all stand on one bottom to wit that they are not instituted but more of this in its due place For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow His Reasons in their place we shall Consider What he saith of the Crossing the Baptized Party I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it wherefore I answer That tho' it be the Ministers Action yet it is the Parties or his Representatives passion and that Personal It cannot be done on my Person or my Child 's without my Consent and Submission as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me I am culpable in reference to that Superstition So it is in this case Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon I am wholly a stranger to and can pass no Judgment on it but if this be as he saith it is no way to be justified But he should not charge the party with this There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike And if we should trouble the world with such publick Resentments of the same kind of dealings and worse that we and our way have met with and Daily do meet with not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party but from Pulpits and the Press not by the baser Phamphelteers only but famous Authors witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery we might write Books abundance His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say in that he representeth us as Depravers Raillers Back-bâ—ters Inventors of Lyes and spreaders of false Rumors and that of the best deserving men if they but come short of pleasing our humour Sect. 38. The Dr. next p. 59. taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries which I shall not stay to Consider Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness that he complaineth he hath received Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man will applaud his severe strain And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him I know not but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so dispised and his VVriting Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust it is neither so Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text of the Dr's Sermon he now waveth as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity which I think might have passed as Forreign to this purpose Sect. 39. One of his Antagonists p. 71. chargeth him with changableness in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum about which he maketh Diverse Apologies A change in this Learned Man is too visible and if it had been to the better it had not been Culpable but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Church-way I shall not meddle in that matter at this time Especially a change being upon the matter acknowledged by himself p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over That he had Asserted in his Irenicum that if others cast them wholly out of Communion then is their Separation necessary which he would reconcile with what he here writeth p. 47. by shewing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England for saith he Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication which he confesseth publick defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under ipso facto by the Canons but that it layeth on no Obligation till duely Executed But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema All this is very little to the present purpose for if we be all ipso facto Excommunicated and if this Excommunication be most frequently as it is Executed against us and capias's issued out commonly against us and all this for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity as he calleth it by these means we are de facto put in such a Case as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them and therefore we must either live without Gods Ordinances or have them out of Communion with their Church Again he Alledgeth p. 75. that he could not mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determineth That in the case of our Church men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it Neither doth this help the Matter for if we think as we do that we are bound in Conscience not to submit to all the Orders of the Church some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God and if for this Opinion and suitable Practice to it we be so excommunicated as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church then we are cast wholly out of the Church and our Separation must be Lawful on the ground that of old he had laid down But pag. 76. He would in that case allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion but not to proceed to a positive Separation But if we make use of his Allowance the Church who is of another mind putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances What can we then do but either live without them or proceed to that which he is pleased to call a positive Separation We are not convinced that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad for all the Letters that he mentioneth of which in their place And it is a rash Assertion which he knoweth cannot be Tried pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the unlawfulness of the present Separation He our Author maketh good the saying Quod misere volumus id facile credimus any man that hath seen the Vniformity in almost all things that is between our mode of Worship and their's and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England The excellent
the World judge We are content to set aside all the Authority of men Ancient and Modern and to referr our debate simply to the Determination of Scripture But mens Authority is the Argument that the Dr. in this Book doth most insist upon I hope the Reader may by this time perceive whether the Dr. doth truly or faIsly Assign the Foundation of our Differences which I with him acknowledge to be unhappy Sect. 21. He saith p. 14. That in the English Reformation they proceeded more out of reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rule Here are two mistakes not to be passed in silence 1. The Ancientest Church had none of the Ceremonies they were neither in the Apostolick Church nor in that which was near it How ancient they were he will after give occasion to enquire So that England took for their pattern the Church that was much declined both in Antiquity and Purety 2. What can be more grosly false than to say that other Reformers made meer opposition to Popery with their rules Two things make the contrary evident 1. They did not reject all that Papists held as That there is one God c. 2. They rejected nothing of Popery but what they gave other reasons for than that the Papists held it to wit That it was contrary to Scripture or not instituted by Christ and so condemned in Scripture as vain Worship being a Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men We make Symbolizing with Papists or other Idolaters an Argument against the Ceremonies but we reject them not on that account only and so meer opposition to Popery is not the rule of our Reformation Sect. 22. He complaineth that Calvin and others did insinuate that the English Reformation was Imperfect Nay they openly mainâ—ained it and so do we He doth twice mis-represent Calvin's Words p. 14 15. That he had avowed in the Letter before-cited to the Protector That the best Rule of Reformation is to go as far from Popery as they could No such Words are to be found in that Letter nor any thing that will import so much He doth indeed press the removing of all Popish Ceremonies as having been abused to Idolatry and citeth Psal. 16. 4. Where David saith That he will not take up the names of idols in his mouthâ— but he neither maketh this the Rule nor the best Rule of Reformation He knew that Scripture and Institution which he had a little before-mentioned was the Rule and a far better Rule than that Tho' even that hath its use to direct us in Reformation of the Church Again he saith That Calvin yieldeth to this Moderation that such Ceremonies might be retained as were easie and fitted to the Capacity of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist His words are Adeoque Ceremonias ipsas ad usum captum esse accommodandas sed non minus constanter affirmo Videndum esse ne sub illo praetextu toleratur quicquam quod a Satana vel Antichristo profectum sit Here is no advice to retain any Humane Ceremonies but all of that sort fall under that Censure they being not from God and being Parts of Worship they are from Satan or Antichrist but he would have all the Externals of Worship so fitted to peoples capacity as that they do not hinder but rather help in the inward exercise of it And if Calvin did yield in that Infancy of the Reformation which I think he did not otherwise he could not blame the Imperfection of it That the Ceremonies might be retained it maketh nothing for perpetuating of them The Dr. saith They proceeded by this Rule of Moderation taking away all the Ceremonies that were of late Invention And he saith p. 14. That the Ceremonies retained were more ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church It had been fit to have removed all that were of Humane Invention for Antiquity can neither prejudice Christ's Instituâ—ions nor warrant Mens But it is not true that all the Ceremonies retained were so ancient as shall be made appear in due time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Kneelling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper Neither will it free our Ceremonies from being Popish that they were before the great Apostasy if it be made appear that they were with a considerable degree of the Apostasy yea and a part of it Sect. 23. He endeavoureth to free our Ceremonies from Popery because the Cross is used by Papists in the Scrutinies before Baptism we use it after Baptism and Kneeling is not strictly required by the Roman Church in the act of Receiving as appeareth by the Pope's sitting or a little leaning For the first What great difference doth it make whether Crossing be used before or after Baptism seeing it is not to be omitted but belongeth to that Sacrament as one of its Adjuncts Our quarrel with it is not that it is used after Baptism but that it is used being none of Christ's Institutions but of Man's Invention and abused in the Popish Administration of Baptism For the Second I hope he will not deny that Kneeling in the act of Receiving is the constant Practice and required among the Papists and That the Pope who to them is above the Laws of God should be exempted from the Laws of their Church is so insignificant an Argument against Kneeling being required by them that I wonder to see it used by so Learned a man. For his Plain Linen Garment only used instead of many of the Popish Vâ—stments which was used in the time of Jerom and Austin I deny that it is the only Vestment that they use as appropriated to Religion and religious Persons any who readâ—th the Book of Canons made Anno 1603. Can. 74. may see the contrary the Reverend Clergy there busying themselves to order the fashion of Cloaths that all of them should use But that the Surplice is as ancient as Hierom and Augustin I shall not now examine seeing it is too well known that many Abuses were crept into the Church sooner than their days the one flourishing in the end of the Fourth Century the other in the Fifth I see no cause why any man should stand amazed at the noise that is made against the mischief of these Impositions as he saith p. 16. seeing all that he hath said doâ—h not clear them from being Men's Devices in God's Worship and consequently vain Worship which is a burden to any Conscience that regardeth Christ's Authority more than that of Men. Sect. 24. He pretendeth Sect. 5. to give Reasons why the Ceremonies were retained by our Reformers tho' they were distasteful to some Protestants and like to prove the Occasions of future Contentions These Reasons are three 1. Out of a due reverence to Antiquity 2. To justifie the Reformation before Enemies in that we would not break with them for meer indifferent things 3. To
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church
one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
form of worship and if there be where is it forbidden but in this Commandment Or let him give us any reason why Humane Inventions relating to the manner and form of worship are not forbidden as well as these that relate to the way of it A Reason indeed he pretendeth to give Otherwise saith he all Vse of Mens inventions as to preaching reading interpreting Scripture would be forbidden and then this interpretation of the second Command would be unlawful because it is a meer invention of Man as much as Liturgies and Ceremonies If this be to reason like a Divine or to quibble like a Sophister let the Reader judge for the Invention that men make use of in preaching c. is the act or exercise of their faculties whereby they find out the mind of God The inventions in God's worship that we â—ow debate about are Objects found out by Men not commanded by God. If Men devise unrevealed Objects in Reading Preaching c. we condemn them in that as well as in devising ways of worshipping God And if the Dr. mean that this exposition of the second Commandment is an invention of Man that is the exercise of his inventive Faculty whereby he findeth out the Mind of God he speaketh wide from the purpose when he compareth that with things that men devise to worship God by If he mean That the Interpretation is only devised not warranted let him prove that and we shall reject it Sect. 12. I hope by this time the impartial Reader may judge whether we stretch and force Scripture to condemn Liturgies and Ceremonies as the Dr. saith or he doth so to defend them That he imputeth to us blinding and fettering our minds by Education and reading but one sort of Books and taking things for granted which we ought not we resolve to bear patiently and must accept of these instead of better Arguments to refute our Principle His instance of the deniers of Infant-Baptism proveth fully that the Schism doth not alwaies lie on the Imposer's side tho' they separate from us because of our using it without considering imposing it on them VVho of them have been excommunicated for not using it as we are for forbearing the Ceremonies If men will separate because the Ordinances of God are imposed on them let them answer it we scruple only the Ordinances of Man Neither did we ever say that the blame of separation doth in all câ—ses lie on the Imposers And we confess that where imposâ—d Terms of Communion are scrupled through mistake they that separate on that scruple do sin And we yield also to him that not the pretence of Conscience but sufficient proof of the unlawfulness of the Terms of Communion is a good ground of Separation and we still desire that the matter may be put to that issue Sect. 13. He proceedeth next to set â—orth the principles of them who hold all Acts of Communion with the Church of England unlawful of them he hath little to say their mind as he saith being easily discovered and we are not concerned in that opinion and therefore shall not insist on it Only I see not on what grounds the Dr. nameth the Author of the Book called Jerubbaal as one that is against the lawfulness of hearing the conforming Ministers preach for that Author 〈◊〉 p. 12. of himself and others whom Mr. C. had charged with Schism because they could not communicate with Her in the Liturgy that they joined with Her in the instituted VVorship and substantial Ordinances of Christ as Prayer Hearing of the Word preached singing of Psalms c. SECT IV. The Dr's stating of the Question Examined and the Question truly Stated THE several Principles of the Dissenters having been examinedâ— the Dr. now proceedeth to state the Question about Separation Some think this should have been done before examining of the Principles on which men separate but the Dr. must use his own method and we must follow him in examining what he saith He giveth us Sect. 15. his Concessions which I shall say little of save to make a Remark on one or two of them And 1. His third Concession is He can allow different modes of Worship in Cathedral and Parochial Churches in publick and private Administrations these being allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live but What is this saith he to the denying of constant Communion with our Churches to the chusing of new Pastors It is true these are two different things the difference is the one is allowed by the Church the other not so But consider the things in themselves and abstracted from the Churches pleasure and there will appear to be as little Vniformity between Cathedral and Parochial Worship as between their Parochial Worship and that used in the Meetings of the Dissenters Now we gladly would know of the Dr. or any of his Party seeing the Church can yield so far to Parochial Assemblies as not to tie them to the same Modes with Cathedral Assemblies because they cannot go to the expence of it And seeing the Church dispenseth with crossing in prâ—vate Baptism why may She not condescend so far to the Dissenters who cannot for their Consciences use these things and so shun this Breach in the Church this denying of Communion with their Churches and chusing of new Pastors Are the Consciences of men so little to be regarded or Is it fit the Church should be so imperious over her Members as that She will indulge Mens Purses but not their Consciences She will dispense with the sign of the Cross for Her pleasure but not for peoples consciences when they can shew good reason for what they think and make conscience of This is wholly unaccountable and very inconsistent with those high pretentions that our Brethren make of regard to Peace and Unity Sect. 2. Another remark I make of his 4th Concession That the Church alloweth a different mode of Worship to Foreign Churches set up in England because they break not off Communion with the Church of England as they do who were Baptized in it But why may not the Church be as kind to her own Members as to Strangers if the Ceremonies be necessary why should the neglect of them be permitted to any If unnecessary why should they be forced on mens Consciences to the Rending of the Church The breaking off of Communion that he talketh of may be prevented by this Condescendency and therefore it is most unreasonable to charge us with that as a Sin which we are under a Necessity to do for shunning the wounding of our Consciences and sinning against God and which they might as easily prevent by shewing us that Favour that they shew to others I take notice also of his 6th Concession That it was no sinful Separation to keep up the Exercise of True Religion under Arians against the will of the Magistrate But what is this to our Case where true Doctrine is taught It is very much to our Case for
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
Gifts and do not cross Christ's Institution whatever inconvenience may be in them 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them Nature maketh it necessary that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency whether for one meeting for a Month or Year or during his life and therefore the Church may determine in that Yet we must add That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or making a moderator constant having been of old and late the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation we think it highly inconvenient 4. Neither do we deny that among Ministers the wiser graver and men of more Holiness and Experience should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren yea we deny not but some of Opinion for parity of Power have overborn their Brethren through their loftiness of Spirit an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian it is not mens Corruptions but their Principles that our debate is about 5. We deny not but the Name Bishop that in the Apostles times was common to all Eldeâ—s of the Church began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator who also was called Primus Presbyter and that this priority for as small as it was was too much affected and taken notice of even in the Apostles times Diotrephes who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter had a great mind to that dignity but this was when â—ew of the Apostles were now alive It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places and was sâ—atched at in other places while yet the ancient Order of Parity among the Pastors of the Church was in most places retained 7. Though we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church for the first Three Hundred Years or that it was general in the fourth Century and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government yet it is not mens Authority but divine Institution that we are determiend by and lay the stress of our Cause upon and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie but the Scripture Sect. 3. It might have been expected that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame as he doth in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates should have proved the Divine Institution or at least the lawfulness of that Office and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier though not so perswasive a way to wit to refute Mr. B's Assertions about Episcopacy and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question as I hope shall appear in our Progress And I have often observed that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear and sure procedure in this Controversie if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert and the Foundation on which they build it as to the thing some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them that they make it little or no more but a Presidency So the learned and Pious Vsher who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party Grotius also goeth this way de Imper. sum potest circa sacra p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church who are to be their Counsel Our Author Iren. p. 309. saith that both Jerom and Ignatius agree that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters nor being liable to their censures So the generality of our High Church-men Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute or delegate to none but Christ some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments in his own Person and that this he should be constantly exercised in Others that his Work is to rule and that he need not trouble himself with other Work unless he please Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only but of Government and Discipline to others yea to Lay-men that by them he may Excommunicate and judge Ministers and People Others think that he hath no power to do so so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government others allow it Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church and that really and not seemingly only as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter who yet are not the Church of whom they must proceed to a Mock election others think those that come in this way to be none of Christs Bishops Some own Diocesan Bishops who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy as it is stated among us in Metropolitans Primates Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons Chancellors c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter others deny this many School men are on both sides it was debated at the Council of Trent In all these things I observe very much Confusion and want of a distinct Idea of that Office that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren Sect. 5. There is as little agreement or distinctness among them about the Foundation on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth Some of them are for iâ—s divine Right as being instituted by Christ But this Plea they find so hard to be managed and to have so ill success and to be so little the way to preferment as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate that most have laid it aside others that it is of Apostolick institution being not commanded by Christ but prudently setled by the Apostles Others that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church afâ—er the decease of all the
to themselves than thus to prelimit the people in that which so nearly concerns their Souls and to make that but an Accessory to wit the charge of Souls which should be the thing principally minded As now the Living is 2. The Magistrate or Patrons electing of a Minister may give him a Title to the Living but it can never make him the Pastor of such a people nor fix a Relation between him and them of Pastor and Flock For it is wholly Forreign to the Church as a Church it is a thing of Worldly concern and therefore can never found that Relation which is an Institution of Christ in his Church 3. We do not deny but when the people have chosen a Pastor and the Presbytery hath ordained him also the Magistrate may Imprison Banish or otherwise punish him so as he is consequentially restrained from the exercise of his Ministry among that people if the man be guilty of a civil crime of which the Magistrate is Judge but we deny that this Act doth dissolve the ministerial relation between that Pastor and People that cannot be done but by the Church 4. We do not so put Election into the hand of the multitude as either to exclude the Eldership that is among them or to exempt the people from their guidance in this The Eldership ought to regulate this Action yet so as it be not done without the consent of the generality 5. We are far from saying That the People by their Election doth make the Elected person a Minister that is done by Ordination which is in the Hands of the Presbytery 6. We do not say That this Elective power of the people is Arbitrary and independent they are to be bounded in it by the Rules of the Gospel that set forth the qualifications of Ministers and if they chuse contrary to these the Presbytery may reject the person and refuse to ordain him 7. We deny not but a part of a Church or the whole Church may forfeit this Right as to the present exercise of it by Ignorance Scandal Irreconcileable Contentions about the matter and such like in which case the power of Election devolveth into the hands of the Pastors of the Churches associated I mean the Presbytery Yet the peoples satisfaction should be endeavoured as much as is possible 8. It is the Right of the people which they ought not to be deprived of nor restrainâ—d from exercising ordinarily nor without singularly weighty cause to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 3. As to the Author of this Right in the people I maintain that it is neither from the Churches Determination nor from any grant from the Magistrate neither do I plead any Law of nature for it For by Divine Institution which is never contrary to the Law of Nature it was otherwise in the Jewish Church And though there be abundant reason for it it being the priviledge of Free Corporations and other Societies to chuse these that are to govern them and it being rational that a Corporation or person may chuse the Lawyer that they will intrust their Estates to and the Physician in whose hand they put their life so men should not be imposed upon to entrust the Conduct of their Souls to a person that they have not confidence in and whom they cannot chuse for that end Yet I say we do not lay the stress of the matter on Humane Reason but on Gospel Institution I affirm then that this is the Institution of Christ that it is the order that he hath appointed in the Gospel that people should have liberty to chuse their own Pastors and other Church Officers Sect. 4. I am next to shew the grounds that we have to think so I shall prove this by shewing that it was the constant practice in the Church while the Apostles managed the Affairs of it that Church Officers were chosen by the suffrages of the people and I hope it will not be denied that such practice is declarative of Christ's Institution The first Argument for it is from Act. 14. 23. where though Ordination or appointing be expressed in our Translation yet the Greek Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 â—ignifieth a chusing by Suffrages as the manner of the Grecians was by stretching out or lifting up the hand for that is the force of the Word to declare their Votes I deny not that this Word is sometimes used figuratively for potestative mission the effect or consequent of Election and that by one person withot Suffrages as Act. 10. 14. yet it is very rare that the Word is so used And it is evident that the Word is most commonly usâ—d in this sence of all the Instances that Scapula in his Lexicon giveth of the use of this Word not one of them is to the contrary And it cannot be Instanced that ever this word is used for laying on of hands lifting up which is the force of the Word and laying them down being so opposite it is not to be imagined that the one should be put for the other Neither is it fit to seek for the Figurative signification of the Word when the proper signification may be admitted It is objected against this use of the Word here that they ordained 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to them not to themselves that is the Apostles to the people ordained Elders Answ. It cannot be denied but 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used indifferently for them or themselves and why it may not here be understood of themselves I see not so as that here is denoted the Action of appointing Elders for the people in which the people had a hand by Election as the Word here importeth and the Apostles had a hand by Ordination as can be proved by other Scriptures But if we should turn 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 them the sense may run plainly thus the Apostles appointed by Ordination Elders for the people upon their Electing them by Suffrages It is no strange thing in Scripture to see divers Actions expressed by the same Word where one is the consequent of the other as Is. 38. 17. Thou hast Loved my Soul out of the pit of corruption i.e. delivered it because thou loved it Also Act. 7. 9. The Patriarchs are said to sell Joseph to Egypt where both their Actions and the Actions of the Midianites who carried him to Egypt and there sold him are included in one Word Many Instances of this kind of Synthesis may be seen in Glâ—ss Philol. Sacr. lib. 3. tract 3. p. 229 It is also objected that these are said to Ordain who commended the people to the Lord that is the Apostles and that the Apostles are spoken of all along in the Nominative Case and not the people and therefore they must be the Actors meant by this word Answ. We deny not the Apostles to be Actors meant in this Word as the Patriarchs were in the Word Selling to Egypt Act. 7. 9. but we
mind Also Augustine naming Eracius his Successor addeth this express caution si Ecclesia Consentiat and declareth hoc esse receptum provatumque jus consuetudine ut tota Ecclesia sibi elegat Episcopum aut in ipsum consentiat Hierom Ep. ad rustic Monachum Foll 292. cum ad perfectam aeâ—atem veneris si tamen vita comes fuerit â—e vel populis vel pontifâ—x Civitate Elegerint agito quae Clerici St. He supposeth it as the received practice that the People should elect Ambros. Ep. 82. Electio vocatio quae sit a tota Ecclesia vere certo est divina vocatio ad munus Episcopi Many more Citations might be added but these may suffice and abundance more may be seen append ad Catalog Test. veritat where this right of the People is deduced from the Days of the Apostles to the Eigth Century by Testimonies out of all sorts of Authors That Author taketh notice of this as an ordinary Clause in many of the Epistles which Tinemeras Archbishop of Rhemes in the Reign of Charlemain ab omnibus debet eligi cui debet ab omnibus obediri Sect. 9. I shall now attend to what the Learned Dr. hath to say in the contrary of this right of the People so divinely appointed so anciently universally and long approved He discourseth these three things to this purpose 1. What inherent Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficâ—ent Ground to resume it One would think that if this Power be from Christ his other two parts of his discourse mighâ— have been spared For who then could take it from them And they always had a Right to resume it being unjustly deprived of it As to the first of these his debate with Dr. O. about the Peoples Church-Power and the Government of the Church being Democriâ—al I medle not with we plead for this power in them not all Church-power But he cometh Sect. 25. to this power of Election for disproving of which he undertaketh to make out six things I shall examine them in order But I think it had been more to the purpose to have answered the Scriptures and Testimonies out of Antiquity alledged by the opposites which he hath not done The First of these is That the main ground of the Peoples Interest was founded on the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Ans. I have produced other grounds and not made this either the main or any ground of this Right of the People for indeed that passage of Scripture doth direct the Electors but doth not determine who should Elect. I deny not but some of the Ancients made use of that Scripture to this purpose but they made use of others also and having established the Truth on other Grounds they might well apply this place as spoken to the People to direct them how to manage that power of Elâ—ction that the Lord had given them This is a sorry Shift to shun the Dint of Arguments to pitch on that which is either no Argument or a weak one and to set up that as the only Argument and so by beating it down to Triumph Sect. 10. He bringeth a passage out of Clem. on which he taketh a great deal of pains to make it speak for him contrary to the manifest design of it The passage is The Apostles Preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint the first Fruites having made a Spiritual Tryal of them to be Bishops and Deacons The Apostles foresaw the Contentions that would be about the Name of Episcopacy i. e. saith the Dr. about the choice of Bishops therefore they appointed the Persons mentioned and left the Distribution of their Office with this Instruction that as some dyed other approved Men should be chosen into their Office These therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the Church being therewith all pleased discharging their Office with Humility cannot be justly put out of their Office. A Man of less learning than the Dr. might easily draw the quite contrary Conclusion from these words of Clement but it will require all his Skill and more too to conclude from them against popular Election But thus he argueth They were to be appointed by the Apostles therefore not of the Peoples choice Ans. Non sequitur The Deacons were appointed by the Apostles Act 6. 3. yet the People are to look out from among them i. e. to chuse and the Apostles to appoint them i. e. set them apart for their work Many other Instances may be given yet this Argumentation the Dr. useth again pag. 315. as if it were a mighty Argument He saith it seems some of the People were Contentious and endeavoured to throw out some of their Officers which occasioned this Ep. Ans. This Ep. is clear that the People may not cast out their Officers doing their Work in Humility but not a Word in it against their Electing of them but clearly to the contrary in these words the whole Church being therewith well pleased implyeth that it is not to be done without them and what Hand they can have in placing their Officers that doth not amount to Election I know not He saith they took this course of Purpose to avoid Contentions What course doth he mean It cannot be meant of Obtruding Officers on the Church for he saith they must be well pleased Therefore the Course must be appointing Officers Authoritatively by Ordination who being so appointed could not be ejected again quemdiu se bene gesserunt as appeareth by Clem. instancing the Blossoming of Arons Rod to put an end to the Emulation among the Tribes which was a Strife not about Election but about changing of the setled Officers of the Church He saith all that the People had to do was to give their Testimony Clem. saith they must be well pleased And it is clear that that excludeth obtruding â—astors on people either by Patrons or the Magistrate or Bishop He saith it seems probable to him that the reason of the Faction among them was that some represented it as a Grievance that those Officers were appointed by others not chosen by them Why this should seem to him I know not except that prejudice representeth things otherwise than they are as coloured Spectacles do It seemeth to me there could be no such thought among the People because Clement supposeth the Officers to have been chosen by themselves the whole Church being well pleased That these Factious Men had no Objection against the Presbyters themselves the Dr. Asserts but he doth not prove It is true Clem. supposeth there was no Ground for Objection and therefore they could not be cast out while they were humble quiet ready and blamless but for all that Factious Men will find fault and pick quarrels with the most innocent men Sect. 11. He next bringeth Cyprian to plead against popular Election that is to
always observed in the days of Cloâ—harius in France which of them he meaâ—eâ—h I know not there were three of that Name the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after now if the Infancy of this usage was so late and it grew by degrees the adult State of it must be as indeed it is a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts. Sect. 19. 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State there was either greater reason than before or any reason for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church as to take it out of the peoples Hand That there was no greater reason then before I prove both because he cannot shew us such reason and also because before this there were Tumults and Confusions which might require the Magistrates interposition and also because the Christian Emperours had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms No difference in this can be assigned either from any grant of Christ to the one more then to the other nor from sound reason That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason is none at all to wit The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally For 1. Did not the Emperours so too Coâ—stantin's liberality was exceâ—ding great which occasioned that saying hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Priviledges from them that Christ had granted them to more than Jacobs Pottages was for Esâ—us's Birth-right It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine and only fit for Simon Magus that the Liberality of Princes or others to the Church can entitle them to be Masters of her priviledges As there is no more reason now then before so there neither was nor is any reason at all why Magistraâ—es should mâ—dle with the Election of Church Officers because it is the peoples right by Christ's Institution and hath been owned by the Church and the Magistrate for many Ages as hath been shewed above Sect. 20. The Dr. saith that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used these priviledges in Election of Church-men of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people but to be enlarged This he insisteth much upon afâ—erward alledging that the people of England by their representatives in Parliament have given away their power of Elecâ—ion and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates Bishops and other Patrons A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right it was Christ's Legacy to them and not alienable by them It doth concern their Souls not their temporal Estates and such concerns are not at Mens disposal 2. I deny that this was done people never gave away this Right it was partly by violence and partly by Fraud wrested out of their Hands what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away wherein the People are represented is a mistake for the people are represented in Parliament as they are Members of the Body Politick and they instrust all their worldly Interests and Lives and Estates to them whom they chuse and they may dispose of these by making Laws to secure them and also to take them away when the publick good doth so require but they are not there represented as they are Members of the Church neither do they or can they entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls or the Church Rights and Priviledges These Christ hath made Laws about and no Man can make Laws about them all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial not Magisterial as Acts of Parliament are it is to declare Christ's Laws and to put them in Execution and Christ hath not entrusted Kings nor Parliaments with these Affairs but only his Ministers and the people can entrust no other with them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's on which all of it is built is his confounding of Church and State with Erastus which is to mingle Heaven and Earth Sect. 21. He saith The Princes obtained by degrees not only the Conâ—irmation of the Election bâ—t the Liberty of Nomination with a shadow of Election by the Clâ—rgy and others of the Court as appears by the formula of Marculphus Answ. Here is plain dealing both to let us see what fraâ—dulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right by leaving a Shadow of Election when the substance was taken away and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Priviledge that they behoved by such Policies to wind themselves into And further that it is so grosly evil that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church but must thus hide the shame of this practice if they have a good Title why leave they a shadow of Election If not why do they assume the substance of it He ciâ—eth on the Margin in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings several Acts of Couâ—cils as Concil Aurelian An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause for Can. 3. which I suppose is that he aimeth at dâ—th barely name the King whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth so far as the peace of the State is concerned in tâ—em but expresly requireth the Election of the Clergy and People and again their consent and moreover maketh this Election a clero plebe to be as it is written in the Antient Canons Concil Aurelan 2. Can. 7. doth also expresly mention popular Eâ—ection and Concil Aurelâ—an 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent And Concil Aurelian 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordâ—ined in his Church to which he was Elected decreto that was the ordinary Term for the Writing wherein the peoples Election was conâ—ained And in all these Canons there is not one word of the Magistrate except in the first as abovesaid His Concil Tarracoâ— I cannot find Concil Tolet. 12. that he citeth was in the end of the seventh Century when Corruptions were come to a great height and it was but provincial it saith indeed quoscunque pâ—testas regia â—lâ—gerit but the peoples Election is not exluded tho not mentioned and there is an express salvo it is the 6th Can. for the liberty of the Provinces which cannot well be understood but of the priviledge of the people of the Province Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests between the Papal and Regal power and how the latter prevailed in England and citeth several Acts of Parliament as of Edward 6th and others Aâ—sw What doth all this prove If two contend about a Third Persons Estate and the one prevail against the other doâ—h that give him a Title We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about and
of Worship acceptable yet Worship may be without it else the three Children might have fallen down before the Image keeping their intention to themselves without the guilt of the external act of Idolatry Sect. 3. I observe here 2. That the Dr. confoundeth his own distinction by jumbling together the terms of Real and Substantial Worship To real Worship must be opposed that which is no Worship or but such in imagination To substantial Worship must be opposed that which is circumstantial or accidental Worship This is as if we should distinguish Eus in substantiam accidens and speaking of the first Member of the Division call it substantiam or eus reale which comprehendeth both substantia and accidens Let the Dr. then tell us plainly whether by substantial Worship he mean all that is really Worship or is truly Worship Veritate Metaphysica though it be not so Veritate Theologica And if this be his Meaning what needed such a distinction of Worship Had it not been as easie to deny the Ceremonies in debate to be Worship or any part of Worship as others of his Party do What needed he blame the Non-conformists for want of Clearness and Distinction in this matter when himself hath confounded it I see no use of this his clear Notion but to confound the debate and hide the nakedness of his Cause We say the Ceremonies are parts of Worship though false Worship others of his Party say they are no Worship but meer Circumstances of Worship The Dr. will clear the Matter by telling us That they are accidental Worship but not real nor substantial Worship Let any that hath a cleer sight judge whether this be a clearing or a confounding of this Matter Sect. 4. The Dr. will now p. 336. seriously consider this Matter because he designeth not to confute but to convince the Non-conformists and his work for this end is To find out a plain discernable Difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and meer accidental Appendices and this he saith may more disintangle scrupulous Minds than the multiplying of Arguments to prove the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies I doubt not of the Doctor 's good design in this debate but he is not very like to attain it by such Methods as is this proposing a distinction to clear the Subject in dispute and then confound the Terms and then at last as he doth here to over-turn it wholly for here he calleth the Ceremonies meer accidental Appendices of Worship that is no Worship nor parts of Worship at all But let him call them what he will we strive not about Names we maintain that they are parts of Worship but parts of false Worship and in such a Religious State as nothing but the Institutions of Christ can lawfully have in that they are used in Religion appropriated to it designed for the Honouring of GOD by them for the bettering of Religious Actions and for the Religious end of edifying the Souls of them that use them These Qualities are in the Ceremonies and if these conjoined do not make an Action to be Religious and a part of Worship they belonging to no other part of Religion I know not what can make a thing to be an Act of Worship for to say that nothing can be a Religious Act but what hath Divine Institution is to deny that there can be such a thing as an external Act of Idolatry or Superstition Sect. 5. In pursuance of this Enquiry and to find out this plain and discernable difference between substantial parts of Worship and accidental Appendices of it The Dr. bringeth several things agreed on both sides they are five in number I shall not repeat them nor except against them save that I wish he had shewed in the Second of them how these things under the Law that by divine Institution became parts of Worship were of themselves Ritual and Ceremonial I rather think that without divine Appointment it was unlawful to use them as Rites or Ceremonies in Gods Worship He cometh now Sect. 27. To find out the Marks of Distinction to satisfie the Conscience of the Difference between Innocent Ceremonies and superstitious parts of Divine Worship Here is yet another Face of our Proteus-like distinction but I wave that finding that the Dr. cannot make it appear that there is any part of Worship that is not substantial and real Worship and that all that is a part of Worship is even by him looked on as superstitious if it be not appointed by divine Authority For his Notion of Innocent Ceremonies I apprehend not his Meaning by this Term Accidental Appendices of Worship he calleth them before which also needeth a Commentary If he mean natural Circumstances I know these may be very innocent and yet not instituted But a Ceremony as I have shewed in the before cited Vindic. of Purit C. 3. Sect. 3. is properly a thing in Statu Religioso or appropriate to Religion but no natural part of Worship and therefore I see not how it can be innocent unless instituted For accidental Appendices of Worship if they be any thing beyond natural and necessary Circumstances determined by natural or civil Custome I see not how these either can be innocent unless instituted I humbly conceive the Dr. hath hitherto brought little light into this Controversie but rather Darkness and Confusion Sect. 6. Seeing we cannot agree about these Notions let us labour if we can to concert the thing He telleth us of Two ways by which Ceremonies may become parts of Worship 1. By supposing them to be necessary and pleasing to GOD without a humane Law imposing them 2. By supposing them unalterable We need not debate with the Dr. whether things become parts of Worship and so superstitious when not instituted by these two ways or not But all this Discourse is wide from the purpose unless he make it appear that no uninstituted thing can be a part of Worship nor superstitious but by one of these Two Means Or if we can make it appear that without both these Opinions of men about the Things that they use in Worship without Institution they may be guilty of false Worship or Superstition which I here do briefly because I have done it sufficiently in the place cited against Mr. Ritshell who objected the same thing in defence of the Ceremonies that the Dr. now doth 1. If this were true there could be no external Act of false Worship without an Erroneous Opinion of the Mind but that is absurd for then a man who to shun Persecution should fall down before an Idol and in Words and Gestures do all that Idolaters do should not be guilty of the outward Act of Idâ—latry yea it would follow that is the Church should erect a Statue and impose it as a necessary Term of Communion with her that her Members should once a week kneel before that Statue and pray to GOD and then kiss that Statue with a reverend Bow when mean while the
Church declareth that this is not commanded out of an Opinion that such kneeling c. is antecedently pleasing to GOD nor that this their Command is unalterable nor binding to all nor that the things commanded are unalterable and so binding but only the Church judgeth this decent and fit to adorn the other parts of Worship I say in this case this bowing should be innocent Ceremony and no Act of false Worship which I think will hardly go down with the greatest Ceremony-Mongers And in a word let us but receive this one Principle that there is no false Worship without such Opinion as he mentioneth and men may do what they will and the Church impose what she will in the Worship of GOD provided they keep a right Opinion about the nature of these things so that it is no more our concern to look to Scripture that we may learn how to order the external Worship of GOD but to look to our Opinion that it be not faulty And by this means there are few of the Ceremonies that ever Papists or Heathens used but a Church sound in the Faith and in opinion about Superstition might bring them into the Worship of GOD which is to open the door for Ceremonial Worship a little too wide in the opinion of most sound Divines Sect. 7. Another Exception I make against the Dr. Two ways how an Act becometh superstitious is let them especially the first of them be applyed to our Ceremonies and I doubt not but even what himself hath said might condemn them for however the pliable People that use the Ceremonies because commanded by the Church and see no antecedent necessity or goodness in them may by this means be acquitted from Superstition the Church that imposeth them cannot be so innocent for either the Church must have reason for this Imposition or none but sic volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione Voluntas The Latter I hope the Dr. will not say lest by purging his Church of Superstition he make her guilty of as great a Crime to wit being Lords over GOD's Heritage and Church-Tyrants If he say the Former this Reason must be that these things are needful that they please GOD No say our Adversaries the Churches Reason for imposing them is She thinketh them decent and edifying But doth she not think this Decency and that Edification that is by them to be antecedently pleasing to GOD and needful for the Church If she do not she acteth by meer will if she do she is guilty of a superstitious opinion in supposing uninstituted things in VVorship to be pleasing to GOD antecedentally to a humane Law for if the use of them be pleasing to God so must the things out of which that usefulness doth result And indeed it may abundantly appear to the Conviction of all unbyassed Men what opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies our Bishops have when they appoint them by their Canons impose them with Rigour and Severity punish the Neglect of them with such Violence and when they force them upon the Consciences of them who agree with themselves in all things else and when they make such distractions and divisions in the Church rather than lay aside these things Can any man of common sense whose reason is not fetter'd by Prejudice and Interest judge that men who act so have no opinion of the antecedent Goodness of the Ceremonies or that they do not think them pleasing to God He that thinketh otherwise can think what he will. Sect. 8. I come now to examine what the Dâ— saith in defence of these Two things which he requireth to make an uncommanded Act in Worship to be superstitious The 1st is That it be supposed to be necessary and pleasing to God and the omission of it unpleasing to God antecedently to a humane Law. All the proof that he bringeth of what he saith is that the Observations that Christ condemned in the Pharisees had no other evil in them nor were condemned on any other account but because of this Opinion that they had about them as Grocius observeth that Touching any thing unclean by Law did communicate uncleanness to Soul and Body and that Washing did cleanse both on which supposition they thought this Washing pleasing to God. Three things I here reply before I come to answer the Drs. Proofs of this his Allegation 1. All this is nothing to our purpose unless it can be made appear that Christ condemneth only their erroneous Opinion and not theâ—â— Practise or that they might Lawfully have added these Religious observations to these that the Lord had appointed in his Law provided they had no opinon of the antecedent necessity of the things which is so far from being proved that the Contrary is evident for our Lord doth expresly Condemn the observing of these things Mark 7. 8. Ye hold the Tradition of men as the Washing of Pots and Cups and many other such things do ye Their Doing not their Thinking only is condemned Will any man say that if any of the Pharisees should have laid aside that Opinion that the Dr. imputeth to them and look'd on these observations as of no necessity antecedent to the Tradition of the Elders and yet observed them Carefully and Religiously that such a one had sufficiently complyed with Christ's Doctrine no surely for the Controversy between the Disciples and Pharisees was not about Thinking but about Doing the Disciples not only were not of their Opinion but abstained from their Practice Sect. 9. It is evident from Galat. 4. 9 10. that the Apostle condemneth the observation of the old Jewish Ceremonies though it is clear that he is mainly disputeing against their opinion of Justification by works and these among other works yet this doth not hinder the practice of these abstracted from that opinion to be evil it being expresly condemned wherefore it is not enough that our practice in Gods Worship be not built on a bad opinion but it self must have warrant from God. 2. Christ in that debate is mainly dealing with the Imposers of these Ceremonies the Pharisees who continued that Yoak on the People that their Ancestors had laid on them and therefore it is no wonder that he took notice of a perverse opinion in them which moved them so to impose on the People whereas the people that obeyed might be moved only by the authority of their Guides hence he calleth them their Traditions because they continued them and put new life in them by their Authority The parallel then still holdeth between our Case and theirs as they behoved to have some undue esteem of these washings that made them Impose them with the same yea more Zeal than that with which they enjoyned the Ordinances of God so there must be in our Church-Guides some apprehension of Good in the Ceremonies more than is meet that maketh them not only intermix them with Divine Worship but impose them with equal if not superiour Zeal with the
of what is represented by Christ's Sign viz. one part of the Covenant there sealed which is subjection to and owning of the Redeemer and put this their sign in the same Religious state with Christ's Sign so as there is no difference between them but the Authority by which they are instituted it may be warrantably said that they make a Sacramental Sign and that they make a new Sacrament as far as man can make it 8. That we may devise a Sign to represent the Duty in Baptism because the Duty is ours as God appointeth the Sign to represent the Grace because that is his is a strange assertion for that is to allow man an equal share with God in instituting a Sacrament in which both the Grace of God and the Duty of Man or his engagement to his Duty are sealed and represented If Ceremonies must have such Divinity to defend them I shall be less in love with them than before Sect. 19. He denyeth p. 349. that the Cross in Baptism is intended by the Church as a Sign of immediate Dedication to God but of Obligation on the person and laboureth to clear the thirtieth Canon asserting the contrary which saith that by it the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died on the Cross. VVhat he saith for vindicating this Canon is that Baptism is compleat before Crossing and so it is no part of Baptismal dedication and that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ but signeth with the Cross in the name of the Church who by that Rite receiveth the Infant into their number and thus understanding the use of the Cross he saith all the difficulties about dedicating covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Signs will appear to be of no force Answer 1. The Dr. would say something by mentioning Immediate Dâ—dication and if what he intendeth by it be to the purpose it must be that the Church may not institute a Sign whereby one is Immediately dedicated to God but they may institute one whereby he is Immediately dedicated to God Now if the Dr. had given any hint of a ground for this distinction or to shew that the one is more lawful than the other he would have obliged us but that not being done his implyed distinction is to be rejected as without all ground 2. A Sign of Obligation of the Person to dedicate himself to the Redeemer used in a piece of Gods solemn Worship and appropriated to that Worship is by its Signification its End its concomitant Circumstances so stated as the using of that Sign cannot but be a Religious Act and so a part of God's VVorship which as the Dr. himself confesseth needeth Divine Institution and cannot lawfully be appointed by the Church 3. I wonder why the Dr. should endeavour to vindicate that Canon that he citeth from meaning what it expresly saith viz. that by the sign of the Cross the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who Died on the Cross it is impossible to shun expounding this of a dedicating Sign without doing the greatest violence Imaginable to the plain words neither is there the least shadow of ground to think that Immediate dedication is not here meant seeing the Infant is said to be dedicated by this Sign without the least hint of any intervenient dedicating sign or cause between the sign and that which the Dr. will call Immediate Dedication 4. VVhen he saith the Crâ—ssing is no part of Baptismal dedication the meaning must be it is not a part of Dâ—dication by that Sign that Christ appointed viz. Baptising in the name of the Father Son and Holy Ghost none doubteth of that but how doth this shew that it is no dedicating sign as the Canon saith or no immediate dedicating sign as the Dr. alledgeth It is a sign devised by men to dedicate the Infant added to the sign appointed by God for the same end Now our Question is VVhat warrant have men for making such an Addition to so great an Ordinance of God 5. The next thing for vindicating the Canon is that the Minister Baptiseth in the Name of Christ but Signeth in the Name of the Church is as little for his purpose for who gave the Church Power to Institute a dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in her name and set it up by Christ's dedicating Sign to be Administer'd in his Name This seemeth to be an addition to Christ's Ordinance and a reflection on it as imperfect as if the Child were not sufficiently dedicated to the Redeemer by Christ's Sign that he hath Instituted for that End. 6. It doth least of all vindicate the Canon which he addeth to wit that by it the sign of the Cross the Church receiveth the Infant into their number for this is a quite other thing than the Canon saith and to make that the meaning of the Canon is to take a liberty to impose what meaning upon it he pleaseth Let the Reader now judge whether by any thing that he hath said all the difficulties about Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental signs do appear to be of no force Sect. 20. He asketh page 350. Why may not the Church appoint such a rite of admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Answer The Church hath not appointed it as a rite of admission of a Member but a rite of dedicating the Person to Christ as hath been shewed And the reason why he may not do it is because Christ hath already done it sufficiently He hath appointed Baptism both for dedicating the Person to himself and for admitting him into his Church Therefore men ought not to contrive their signs for that end which he hath abundantly provided for by his own means Another reason why this may not be done is because this sign is so stated in the Word of God by being done in the Solemn Exercise of it for a Religious end and appropriated to this Religious Exercise that it cannot be otherwise lookt on than as a piece of Gods Worship He parallelleth this with holding up the hand in an Independent-Church presently after Baptism as a sign of admission into that particular Church Answer 1. I know no warrant for such an admitting rite Baptism is sufficient to make one a Member of Christs Church and that maketh one a Member of any particular Church where Providence casteth his lot 2. If Independents should state this admitting rite in the very Solemnity of Baptism before the complex action be finished they were to be blamed but they do not so they make an observable difference as to time and other circumstances between these two actions 3. Signing with the Cross is not a meer admitting sign into a particular Church as shall afterward be discoursed but also a dedicating sign as the Canon expresly saith and therefore this parallel is null Sect. 21. He next blameth Mr. B. for supposing that the Minister signing the Child speaketh in the Name of Christ or as his Officer and
The Dr. is pleased Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus and counts opposing it a blow at the Church If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony he should have answered what is of purpose learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken and twelve arguments against it by another hand and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A. But this Ceremony being imposed by the Church as one of the terms of her Communion which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it I shall a little consider it by proposing our scruples against the use of it and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it But we must first consider the true state of the controversy which is not whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name whereby that Blessed Person or either of the other Persons of the God-head are designed to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty whom Saints and Angels Worship Yea nor thirdly whether it be in it self and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling as bowing or lifting up the eyes when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names All these we readily yield And our Brethren on the other hand grant that no Worship direct or indirect mediate nor immediate such as Papists give to their Images is due to the Name i. e. the Word 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service it is not there restricted to the Lessons and the Creed as the Dr. alledgeth page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeths Sermons are also taken in a general clause when otherwise in the Church mentioned carrieth it to all acts of Worship which the Dr. without ground would limit to wit when they are not imployed in any other act of Devotion 3. They make it no natural but instituted piece of Worship the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful never pleadeth for the necessity of it and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church It is true some of them plead Scripture for it to wit Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty as naturally necessary as praying and believing But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this The question then is 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence by bowing the head or knee or otherwise when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands To both our Brethren answer affirmatively and we answer negatively Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship Ergo it is unlawful The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of Mens Traditions in his Worship as vain on this account that they are the Commands of Men Math. 15. 9. Mark 7. 7. of which before And I think the Doctor will not deny it who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant page 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts to wit that this Act is uncommanded and that it an Act of Worship For the First Few of our Brethren alledge a Command for it for then it should not be indifferent as they make it and they that plead a Command found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way injoin any such Rite For first the Greek Text is plain not at but in the Name of JESUS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words For the plain sense is that subjection to his Dignity and Power shall be yielded by all Creatures 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service but must either prove this a duty at all times when this Name is uttered or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling and I know not that it is in the Churches Power where the Lord commandeth kneeling to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be injoined so is confessing with the Tongue ver 11. What power hath the Church to pick and chuse Scripture-Commandments to injoin one and neglect another of equal Authority But why do I stay on this many Episcopal men and even some Papists look on this Text as nothing to the purpose in hand for the Second Part of the Antecedent that this Bowing is an Act of Worship I hope that will not be denyed it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ and the stating of it in Divine Service and appropriating it to that doth constrain men to look so upon it Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service Ergo It is not acceptable Service The Consequence I hope will not be denyed The Antecedent I prove because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word rather than at the mention of these other Names by which God Father Son and Holy Ghost or our Blessed Redeemer are called It is not enough that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST and therefore must either prove the Church faulty in not instituting Worship to all these names or they prove nothing at all 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony between this name and others that are equally holy therefore they must either give a reason why adoration is fit in this case rather than in the other cases or they do not reach the Question The Reasons given by the learned Hooker Eccles. polic lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent to wit 1. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him is not warrantable He hath appointed ways for it and not left them to our devising 2. He saith It maketh much against the Arians who deny his God head Answer 1. His way of convincing gain-sayers is by the Word we must not devise ways of our own to convince Hereticks Moses and the Prophets being God's way are more powerful to convince than if one were sent from the dead
it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated motive to Worship And after if men sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship yet how shall we excuse our own adorations Sure the application of all this to the present Controversy is not so hard to be understood but that a man whose wit is not a wool-gathering may see these are not the words of a delirious man. He doth not charge the Church of England with using Images but with using the sound of a word to the same purpose with the lower use that Papists ascribe to Images and inferreth that if the one be a sin so is the other and the one may as lawfully be done as the other The adorations he speaketh of are worshipping God by the help of the sound of that word as a motivum cultus and therefore there is no need of proving that ye Worship any other beside God before ye need excuse your adorations The Dr. confesseth page 361. that their Church never denied that men sin in making Images a stated motive of Worship Hence Mr. A. inferreth that their Church sinneth in making the sound of a word a stated motive of Worship but this the Dr. is not pleased to take notice of But when Mr. A. asserteth that they may bring in Images with equal reason the Dr. denieth that we may worship Images on the same reason that we perform external adoration to Jesus at the mention of his Name still he will not take notice wherein the parallel and consequently the strength of the reason lieth to wit in making Images a motive of worship and making a word such but the Dr. parallelleth making Images the object of Worship and making the word Jesus the occasion only of it which is to seek subterfuges not to stand to the argument insisted on Sect. 33. Mr. A. giveth a difference between the tolling of a Bell to call People to Church and the word Jesus occasioning our bowing that the one is out of worship the other in it when we should be intent on devotion In answering this the Dr. saith They contend not for the seasonableness of this bowing when they are in other acts of devotion and immediate application to God but about the lawfulness of it in repeating the Lessons or the Creed Reply 1. I have before shewed that this is not the sense of the Church which injoineth it in time of Divine Service which I hope taketh in prayer yea when ever that Name is mentioned in the Church wherefore the Dr. must be sore put to it when he must defend the Church by contradicting her and setting up his private opinion that he is forced upon against her Authentick and publick Records 2. Here are two distinctions hinted equally useless to this design The first is he pleadeth not for the seasonableness but for the lawfulness of this usage but if it be unseasonable even at these times that he will have it used then it is also unlawful seeing duties acceptable to God must be done in their season 3. The other distinction is it is not to be done in acts of devotion and immediate application to God but in the Lessons and Creed I desire to know whether hearing the Word read and hearing the Articles of our Faith rehearsed in a solemn manner while we are about Worshipping God be not acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God as well as prayer which he seemeth to understand by that expression The word read as well as preached Heb. 4. 2. should be mixed with Faith and so should the hearing the Articles of our Faith and is not Faith in its exercise Devotion and an immediate Application to God At least it cannot be denied that serious exercise of the whole Soul is requisite in these exercises as well as in that which he will call Devotion and therefore it must be as unseasonable to be diverted by waiting for the fall of a Word in the one exercise as in the other 4. The Dr. taketh no notice of the main strength of Mr. A's reason to wit that the toll of the Bell is out of Worship the sound of the Word in it The one is in statu Civili or Communi the other in statu Religioso For I hope he will not deny these exercises in which this bowing is to be used to be Religious acts He saith it signifieth nothing to this purpose whether persons be in the Church or out of if when the Bell rings for in the same page he Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell which ringeth in Worship and if the object of their Worship were right it would make him better understand the parallel Reply It is a rash assertion to say there is no difference between the Bell ringing when People are in the Church and when they are out of it he must mean when they are in the act of Worship and when not otherwise what he saith is impertinent for the one is motivum Cultus and in status Religioso the other not It is true Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell in the next page but he parallelleth it with the sound of the VVord Jesus both being a stated motive of Worship and therefore that is mentioned by the Dr. to no purpose Sect. 34. He saith when it is said in the Injunctions that we must bow at mentioning the Name Jesus in divine Service or when it is otherwise in the Church pronounced Yet saith he by the manner of shewing this reverence viz. with lowliness of courtesy and uncovering the heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other act of devotion Answer By this way of commenting he may easily make the Church say whatever he pleaseth for this is to contradict the Text by his Commentary Let him tell us when is that Name pronounced in the Church and yet People at no other act of Devotion This manner of reverence required proveth nothing for it is no wonder to hear them speak inconsistencies in requiring low courtesy and uncovering of the head in time of Devotion when the head is already uncovered who injoin the same in the Church out of that Devotion when that VVord is mentioned tho' heads be already uncovered as all must be in time of Divine Service by Can. 18. the same that injoineth this Bowing He saith it giveth no interruption to Devotion But doth it give none to other parts of Worship which he is not pleased to call Devotion He will still have it lawful as long as the object of Worship is true the mention of this Name only expresseth the time as the Bell doth of going to Church Answer It will then follow that if Papists will only Worship God not the Image and use it only as a stated motive of Worship that were lawful too But he considereth not that the manner and mean of Worship may be sinful when the object to which it is directed is true and that this is so is
we read judge and hear only on one side think it a temptation to examin cry out we are satisfied already are not willing to be informed nor glad of light fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples c. If we be such men why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such and the People too to cry out away with such fellows from the Earth it is not fit they should live He asketh where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples If I should speak in his dialect I should answer in the arguments by us produced which he and all his party are not able to answer nor have ever answered but I had rather-dispute than scold He saith we may see light if we will We say we would see it if we could and think we could see it if it were to be seen He telleth us how easy this dispute is We assent and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth He chargeth us with willful mistake a mistake we deny and make the contrary of it appear but if it be a mistake that it is willful we also deny and though we cannot in this satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts who will one day judge us and our rash judgers Sect. 6. He contesteth page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook there is no need of insisting on such debates Brethren should study to understand one another and construe every thing to the best But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse pag. 72 73 74. which he hath but lightly or hardly at all touched He proceedeth pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists who objecteth that these who cannot conquer their scruples as to Communion with our Church must either return to the state of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers The Dr's Answer is that this is new Doctrine the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at Reply I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans that did both scruple and act as we do but I deny not that some did join with the Church but then their scruples and ours do differ They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient yet might be used we think them unlawful and not to be used There was also another difference they met with some indulgence and were suffered to Worship God with the Church and forbear the things that they scrupled We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these and therefore whatever they did we are under this unpleasing choice either to sin against God and our Consciences or to set up Separate Meetings or to return to the state of Paganism i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God. Sect. 7. It is objected that we scruple joining in the Sacraments and living under some of the Ministers He answereth that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation neither do I insist on it as I have before declared save where they Preach false Doctrine or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin And this scruple hath been often heard of It is too vulgar a way of reasoning it is a hard case if People must fly into separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be Pray who ever said so But the Dr. would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joining with others their separation be lawful This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge that scrupling can never make Separation lawful it is good ground for these scruples that must do that Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations might have been spared as wholly impertinent O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England he asketh what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present Separation Ans. There is in it that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising or other unlawful terms of Communion and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these He telleth us page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their scruples It is true neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account but withal he might have added that few setled Churches except that of Rome and that of England do tempt or rather force men to scruple and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion which they know many count unlawful What he saith ibid. for Papists Anabaptists and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating doth no way come up to our case Neither are their scruples built on good grounds nor are the things that they scruple known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation by shewing what scruples are to be allowed and what not Hath this never been done by Non-conformists Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences If these were attended to a stop might soon be put to Separation but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand and the Church will impose without cause on the other there is no putting a stop to Separations till the Lord cure our Distempers Rigour and Persecution if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party is one way to put a stop to Separation but it is none of Gods way and as it never had his approbation so it seldom hath had success Sect. 8. The Learned Author Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject to wit the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation and therefore might wave this whole debate But I think it is an abuse and therefore shall say a little on this Subject Here we have not any institution to guide us there being nothing in Scripture that I know of about Spoâ—sion for the party Baptized And therefore as on the one hand what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary should not be withstood so on the other what is beyond that should not be practised and far
be evil and to have had its Rise in the decay of the Church let us bear the blame He saith the rejecting of the Ceremonies gave a great check to the Reformation in France and citeth for it Thuanus and Balduinus both Papists without pointing to their words or places where they may be found wherefore I look on what he saith as gratis dictum And if it were true it saith no more but that there were two in France that were fond of humane Ceremonies as there are many in England VVe have cause to bless the Lord that the Reformation in France was not checked but made very glorious Progress was owned by many great and small was sealed with the Blood of many Martyrs And that it was not universally received we may rationally impute to the supreme Power being against it which useth to have the Command of the Consciences of the greatest and carnal part of the world But what the Dr. saith in prosecuting this reason I wish he would reconcile with his Third Reason That England retained the Ceremonies to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches Sect. 27. His Second Reason is to manifest the Justice of the Reformation by letting Enemies see that we did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Ans. 1. Papists might have seen that if they would have opened their Eyes without our retaining any of their Ceremonies to wit That we brake with them on weighty points of Heresie and Idolatry and not for Ceremonies alone Ans. 2. When we had separated from their Church on such weighty Accounts we were not to retain any thing that they had corrupted the Worship of God by to please them neither could we retain those to shun breaking with them having already broken with them on other accounts Ans. 3. The Dr. taketh it for granted which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question between him and us to wit That the Ceremonies are meer indifferent things If he prove this he must carry the day What Advantage the Popish Bishops for all their Subtilty and Learning that he talketh of could have made of rejecting of these as well as the rest of humane Ceremonies I know not they had a large Field to expatiate in with the People by holding forth to them How many Usages of the ancient Church the Reformers had rejected that were in the Dr's sence meer indifferent things as Holy Water Cream Salt Spittle c. How little addition could the rejecting the Cross Surplice c. with the rest have made to their strength What he citeth out of P. Martyr is abundantly answered Sect. 10. for he speaketh not of Vestments used in but out of Worship about which he would not have such Contentions made at such a time but have them removed afterward The Dr. citeth his words Indefinitely Other Reformed Churches but the Author's words are Per multas Ecclesias nâ—n ab evangelio alienas I suppose he meaneth the Lutheran or rathe Greek Churches for P. Martyr well knew That in the rest of the Reformed Churches no such Vestments were used Sect. 28. Let us now hear his Third Reason to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches and he instanceth in the Lutheran Church Ans. 1. This Reason could not be used by the English Reformers because they would surely rather have imitated the Calvinist Churches with whom they agreed in Doctrine than the Lutheran Churches from whom they differ'd in considerable points of Doctrine if they had designed to symbolize with other Churches and had been influenced in their determination of this matter by that design sure they would have symbolized with the soundest Churches Ans. 2. Neither could this Reason have had any weight if they had used it seeing there were mâ—re Protestant Churches of a contrary Practice and therefore the Protestant Churches would have carried the rejection of the Ceremonies whether the notes had been ponderanda or numeranda Ans. 3. If our Reformers had design'd a Consent in Ceremonies with the Lutheran Churches why did they retain these and not the rest used among them which are most of them as little liable to Exception as those retained and are not by their multitude such a burden as those of the Papists I hope the Dr. when he considereth better will retract this Argument for there is no Reformed Church on earth that the Church of England sheweth any Consent with in her Ceremonies Ans. 4. I have elsewhere shewed from good Authority That the Lutheran Churches at first had no humane Ceremonies but what they now have crept into those Churches afterward as other Evils did which Luther did not authorise Sect. 29. He will not only have Lutherans but the chief among the Calvinists to be of his Opinion He citeth Calv. Ep. ad Sadol That he was for restoring the Ancient Face of the Church His words which I found not easily in that long Ep. are Vt instauretur vetusta illa ecclesiae facies quae primo ab hominibus indoctis non optimis deformata foedata postea a pontifice Romano ejus factione flagitio se lacerata prope deleta est It is evident that he is not speaking of Ceremonies only but mainly of the Doctrine of the Church that was in Controversie between him and the Cardinal Also that it is the Apostolick Church that he speaketh of whose Face he acknowledgeth to have been deformed before Antichrist came to an height He citeth also Calvin de vera Eccles. Reformatione ch 16. which Book I find not in the Catalogue of Calvin's Works only among his Tractatus Theolog. I find a Supplex exhortatio to the Emperour and Diet at Spire De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae which I have diligently lookt into and find no such Passage in it but much contending against Humane Ceremonies And he apologizeth for their casting them out by shewing Quod nihil vel primo digito attigimus nisiquod christus pro nihilo ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traditionibus pronunciat Wherefore if Calvin owne Symbolical Ceremonies as the Dr. alledgeth we must understand him of those of Divine Institution or charge him with Inconsistency with himself Oecolampadius saith he lookt on the Gesture in the Sacrament as indifferent so do we therefore we think Kneeling ought not to be imposed And when it is so imposed it loseth its Indifferency having a shew of Adoration of the Bread. I have not Bucer's Book and therefore say nothing to the citation out of him but that his Authority will not prove the Opinion of the Calvinist Churches that we debate about Sect. 31. Our Author after this Digression returneth to the Historical part of his discourse Sect. 6. He telleth us that in the beginning of Queâ—n Eliz. Reign the Exiles returned from abroad with secret dislike of the Ceremonies but the Act of Conformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoined there was no Separation some of them accepted of Preferment in
the Church The Bishops shewed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching A few remarks on this will serve to clear our way 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren in that they were getting Laws made to force them to that which they could not perswade them to by the Gospel but this is the Old Spirit of that party which still createth trouble to the Church 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment and these he nameth Gilby Whittingham are among them whom Fuller placeth in the Ranck of fierce Non-conformists sheweth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled 3. He omitteth to tell us that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy nor use the Ceremonies which Mr. Fuller Lib. 9. p. 76. informeth us of that not only these fiery men as he calleth them but even the moderate Non-conformists as Mr. Fox Mr. Lawrence Humfrey refused to subscribe 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops that they suffered these Men to Preach notwithstanding of their Non-conformity Indeed there was cause for it they were able and useful men and the Church had much need of their Labours Fuller saith p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch where no brighter Light was seen before where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work and how sorrily he performed it If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation they needed not to be afraid of Separation Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us that these Non-conformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies and gaining Ground they called them the Livery of Antichrist and enflamed the People and this was the first Occasion of pressing Vniformity with Rigor Some were silenced as kindness had made them Presumptuous this made them Clamorous Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered by their Canons began to shew their Authority in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented before B. Grindal one of the most moderate but pressed to Rigor by the rest who asked them have we not a Godly Princess speak is she Evil A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain than a Protestant Bishop That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies is neither to be doubted nor wondered at so did our Lord and Master and his Apostle Paul It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded that being their Commission if they spake Falshood or Truth in an undue manner they were liable to Correction What our Author calleth inflaming the People others will call faithful warning of them against what might displease God and defile their Consciences Any who enflameth them to unsober or unpeaceable principles or practices let them bear their blame I see nothing in their Carriage under the Bishops forbearing of them that deserâ—eth the Name of presumption nor under their Sufferings that should be called Clamorousness as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva how they were used But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them that differ from them and reproach them if they say they feel it Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists or free the Bishops of it Sect. 32. He saith further p. 19. at the end About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers began to have separate Meetings where they Preached and Prayed and had the Sacraments Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary the true Cause and Original of the Separation tho' somewhat unfavourably represented the cause of it was they could not have Gods Ordinances without Mans Inventions their Ministers being silenced who administred them purely and tho' but some of them at first were silenced yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced nor could they live without them So that it was not Exasperation but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances that made them take that course This account of it themselves give as the Dr. hath it p. 20. before the Bishop of London whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal charging them with lying pretences without any Ground mentioned and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop charging them with Condemning the Reformation Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on is Beza's advice to the Ministers and people who tho' he sheweth his dislike of the Ceremonies and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen and the Bishops And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments notwithstanding of the Ceremonies that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation And to Ministers he saith that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not not being able at present to get a sight of the Book but some other Citations already examined make me jealous especially seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them that the Ceremonies are not of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them But whatever were Beza's opinion Non-conformists of old and late took the Word of God and not the Authority of Men for the Rule of their Faith and Practice They honour such as Beza and are ready to receive Instruction from them but must have leave to examine all by Scripture as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul. Again Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together because restrain'd by the Magistrate That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines and is to be examined afterward but he disliked their publick appearance in that case which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate For they had hired a Hall in London as publick as any Church for their Meetings Christ's Apostles were private with the Doors shut when they might not be publick and so should we and yet not give over