14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter And here the main Controversie lies between us and the Congregational Churches Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter then it follows as much from the nature of the thing that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace And I cannot yet see by all that hath been said how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism how great and intolerable soever it be thought As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila and Nymphas and Philemon I say that this is to be understood not of a Church meeting in their Houses but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say most of our Divines are of that Opinion and therefore the Argument holds against them And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before what obligation of Conscience can be upon any when they may serve God in their Families in opposition to Laws to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them For 1. he grants that a Church may be in a Family although a Family as such be not a Church Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church for a Church he saith may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Family Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion especially when the addition of four more may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church 2. All that he saith is that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families And what then the Question is not now whether they be lawfull but whether they be necessary for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law but where is that Command Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches as his great Rule in these cases But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families All that he saith further as to this matter is that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance which in this case amounts to separation But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land and much more before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them All men no doubt that ever broke Laws if this Plea would be admitted would transfer the blame upon those that made them And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull In my Sermon as it is printed I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter That to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted 1. He saith Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority and imposed in such a manner that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies and consequently affords a better plea for Separation But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning I will set down his own Cautions 1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop if he hath Curates under him This he calls Parochial Episcopacy 2. Nor whether these should have Archbishops over them as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office 3. Nor whether Partriarchs Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull as Officers of the King exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit 4. Nor if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them You will ask then where lies this horrible imposition and intolerable usurpation It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making which according to Mr. B. requires two things 1. Local and presential Communion as he calls it i.e. That it consists onely of so many as can well meet together for Church Society 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours which being taken away they are onely Curates and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church I shall undertake these three things 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new
be happy and pleasant as the Paradise of God Lastly I pray that he would preserve you my Lord in perfect and long health for his glory and the good and advantage of that great and considerable part of his field which he has given you to cultivate and which you do cultivate so happily I desire too the help of your holy prayers and the continuance of the honour of your affection protesting to you that I will be all my life with all the respect that I owe you My Lord Your most humble and most obedient Servant and Son in Iesus Christ CLAUDE FINIS A Catalogue of some Books Printed for Henry Mortclock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended answer of T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of Schism and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined The Second Edition corrected by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the True Reason of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Irenicum A Weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Quarto A Discourse concering the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant with a particular Account of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Octavo An Answer to several Late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled a Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. the first part Octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Rom. Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church by Edw. Stillingflect D. D. Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book cutituled Catholicks no Idolaters by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty THE END Arch-Bishop Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition p. 423. Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works n. 34. Vita Juelli per Humâ—red p. 255. Preface to 2d Vol. of Serm. Sect. 11. Preface to the First Volume Sect. 18. Acts and Monuments Tom. 3. p. 171. Foxes and Firebrands 1680. Church History l. 1. p. 81. History of Presbyter l. 6. p. 257. Annales Elizabethae A. D. 1568. V. Thom. à Iesu de natura divinae Orationis Defence of the Answer p. 605. Page 55. Fair warning second Part Printed by H. March 1663. Contzen Politic l. 2. c. 18 Sect. 6 Sect. 9. Coleman's Trâ—al p. 101 Vindiciae libertatis Evangelii Or a Iustification of our present Indulgence and acceptance of Licences 1672. p. 12. Sacrilegious desertion rebuked and Tolerated Preaching Vindicated 1672. Answer to Sacrileg desert p. 171. 1672. Page 71. Page 72. Page 32. Page 250. Preface to the Defence of the Cure p. 17. Defence of the Cure of Divisions introduction p. 52 c. Sacrilegious desertion p. 103 104. Defence of the Cure p. 53. Dr. O. Vindication p. 4. Letter out of the Country p. 7. Pagâ— 4. Mischief of Impos end of the Preface Preface p. 11 13. Page 15. Mischief of Imposition Preface towards the end Christian Direct Cases Eccles. p. 49. Defence of Cure of Divis Introd p. 55. Ib. p. 88. Arch-Bishop Whitgift ' s Defence c. p. 423. Several Conferences p. 258 c. Orig. Sucr l. 2. ch 8. p. 220. Orig. Sacr. p. 367 368. Papers for Accommodation p. 51. Answer to R. Williams p. 129. Irenic p. 123. Page 5. Page 6 7. Page 8. Co. Iast 4. Part. 323 324. Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131. Mischief of Impositions Preface Fresh suit against Ceremonies p. 467. Pet. Martyr Epist. Theolog Hoopero Buc. r. Script Anglic. p. 708. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319. Ridiey's Articles of Visitation 1550. Vindicat. of Nonconf p. 13. P. 35. 37. Iacob's Answer to Iohnson p. 20 21. Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason Bradford's Confer with the Bâ— Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298. Iacob ' s Answer p. 82. Letters of the Martyrs p. 50. Plea for Peace p. 1â—0 Page 19. Page 21. Calvin Ep. 164. Ep. 55. Ep. 165. Tr. of Fr. p. 30. Page 31. Letters of the Martyrs p. 60. Bonavent 〈◊〉 Ps. 21. Angel Roecha de Sollâ—â—i Communione Summi Pontificis p. 33. 38. Calvin Epist. ad Sadolet De verâ Eccl. Reformatione c. 16. â—â—â—olamp Epist. f. 17. Bucer Scriâ—t â—â—gl p. 479. Dialogue between a Soldier of Barwick and a-English Chaplain p. 5 6. Beza Epist. 23. Part of a Register p. 23. Beza Epist. 24. p 148. Gualter Ep. ded ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad Câ—rinth Zanchii Epist l. 2. p. 391. See his Letter in Fullers Church-History l. 9. p. â—06 Bullinger Ep. ad Robert Winton in the Appendix to Bishop Whitgifts first Book Parker on the Cross Part. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 2. Vide Profane Schism of the Brownists Ch. 12. Giffords first Treatise against the Donatists of England Preface Gifford's Second Treatise Preface Answer to Giffords Preface Dangerous Positions c. l. 3. c. 5. The Second Answer for Communicating p. 20. Printed by John Windet A. D. 1588. Page 46. Answer to Ainsworth p. 13. Page 57. Preface to the Readâ—r p. 17. Brownists Apology p. 7. A. D. 1604. A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England Middleburgh p. 3. A. D. 1599. Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply n. 4. p. 240. Brownists Apol. p. 92. Brownists Apology p 7. Barrow ib. Barrow's Refutation of Giffard Preface to the Reader Sum of the Causes of Separation Ibid. Brownists Apology p. 7 8 9. Ainsworth's Counter-poyson p. 3. Ib. p. 87. T. Cs. Letter to Harrison against Separation in Defence of the Admonition to the followers of Brown p. 98 99. Page 106. Page 107. Page 91. Counterpoyson p. 117. Ball against Can p. 77. Giffard's Answer to the Brownists p. 55. Grave Confutation c. p. 9 10 11. â—ravâ—conâ—utation c. â— 12 13 15. Ibid. Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8. Giffard's Plain Declaration c. Preface Answ. to the Brown p. 10 11. Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation Sect. 2. highly commended by Mr. J. Cotton in his Preface before his Commentaries on 4 John Iâ— Sect. C 7 8. V. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson Hildershams Letter Sect. 3. Grave Confutation
Christian Magistrate was by any Prophet either commanded to deal otherwise than by perswasion in publick Reformation when the Magistrate neglected it or reproved for the contrary Fourthly To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave yet not contrary to his liking or when he opposed his Authority directly and inhibited it they never erected the Discipline when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then yet would it not follow that we may do so now for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church as the Christian Magistrate is neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power to pull down and set up Orders in the Church as the Apostles those wise Master-builders had Fifthly As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced they declare 1. So long as the Bishops Suspend and Deprive according to the Law of the Land we account of the Action herein as of the Act of the Church which we may and ought to reverence and yield unto if they do otherwise we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them If it be said the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient We Answer That it lieth on them to Depose who may Ordain and they may shut that may open And as he may with a good Conscience execute a Ministery by the Ordination and Calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness if the Church will press him to it so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserveth Deprivation cease from the execution of his Ministery when he is pressed thereunto by the Church And if a guiltless person put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it What proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are alwayes guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudgment That they are called of God and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops 2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects First They that Inhibited the Apostles were known and professed enemies to the Gospel Secondly The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Gospel which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto than this of our Bishops who though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government and Reformation of the Church yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached but are also Preachers of it themselves Thirdly The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men nor by the hands of Men but immediately from God himself and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men whereas we though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author and we are also called of God to it yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery To this which I had referred Mr. B. to he gives this Answer If Mr. Rathband hath denied this it had been no proof Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof My words are That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband Can any thing be plainer than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it This way of Answering is just as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament and another should reply If Curcellaeus said so it had been no proof Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers When Fr. Iohnson said That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery no not by Lawful Magistrates Mr. Bradshaw Answered This Assertion is false and seditious And when Iohnson saith That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal but this that they ought to obey God rather than Man which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians Bradshaw a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson gives this Answer 1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God as the Ground of their refusal in so many Letters and Syllables yet that which they do assign is by Implication and in effect the same with it For it is as much as if they had said God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us and not Man and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us For opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man they therein plead a Calling from God and not from Man otherwise if they had received a Calling from Man there had been incongruity in the Answer considering that in common sense and reason they ought so far forth to obey Men forbidding them to exercise a Calling as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling Else by this reason a Minister should not cease to Preach upon the Commandment of the Church that hath chosen him but should be bound to give them also the same Answer which the Apostles gave which were absurd So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever to depose a Minister from his Ministery but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery 2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to Sedition we are to know that though the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists Preached Publickly where they were not hindred by open violence and did not nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority or Commandment whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate whether they would or no or in despite of them but such in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate were as private and invisible as might be 3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly
then there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was concerning which these things may be observed 1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessours in Prison which he would have them to doe by turns every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage he gives this reason of it that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men it being now impaired by the fall of some during the persecution In the case of Philumanus Fortunatus and Favorinus he declares he would give no judgment cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint when many of his Clergy were absent And in another Epistle he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage and then he mentions Britius Rogatianus and Numidicus as the chief Presbyters remaining with them besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City And in Constantinople of old saith Iustinian in his Novels were 60 Presbyters for in one he saith The custom was to determin the number and in another that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople Let any one now consider whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations and at Carthage we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians that in the time of Persecution although very many stood firm yet the number of the lapsed was so great that Saint Cyprian saith Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation 2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command nor their own Place nor the future Iudgment of God nor the Bishop who was set over them and had done that which was never done in foregoing times to challenge those things to themselves with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy Wherein he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle saying that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion he complains of these Presbyters that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui Cathedrae reservare reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place and therefore charges that nothing further be done in this matter till his return when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen Lucian returns him answer that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and upon such Discipline as he should impose they were to be received to Communion So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessours they return him answer that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop as an argument of their great modesty and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them and they declare their resolution to doe nothing in this matter till they had a new Bishop By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People to appoint and ordain their own Officers Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers the same he doth soon after concerning Celerinus and Numidicus When he could not go among them himself by reason of the persecution he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters to visit in his name and to take care of the poor and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy Who give an account in the next Epistle that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation 3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People but from the Institution of Christ. So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter Thou art Peter c. And
whatsoever you shall bind c. From whence saith he by a constant succession of times such a course hath been always observed in the Church that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct Since this saith he is a Divine Institution I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me concerning the lapsed since the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the standing People In his Epistle to Antonianus he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world and in that to Cornelius that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus and to Pupianus where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop and to Stephanus that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course Let the Reader now judge whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church But we have this advantage from this appeal that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgment any one may see when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church but what was generally observed over the Christian world And now let Dr. O. give an account how a change so great so sudden so universal should happen in the Christian world in the Government of the Church that when Christ had placed the Power in the People the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs without any controul from the People which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear that the Power was at first lodged in them and not in the People For as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History and that over all the world and in a way of ambition in such humbling times without all manner of opposition for 300 years together and immediately after the Apostles had it been usurpation or innovation When and where is innovation without opposition Would not Elders so many seeing and knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed Aërius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable The force of which reasoning will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease Sect. 5. 2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture The matter of fact is that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture yet saith he there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way The thing I desired was that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations they would prove that they did make new and distinct Churches and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province Who ever denied or disputed that On the contrary the proof of this is a great advantage to our Cause for since where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province it speaks of them as of different Churches but when it mentions the Christians of one City it calls them the Church of that City as the Church of Ierusalem the Church of Ephesus but the Churches of Iudea Galilee and Samaria what can be more evident than that the Christians of one City though never so numerous made but one Church If one observe the language of the New Testament one may find this observation not once to fail that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number they are the Churches of a Province as the Churches of Iudea the Churches of Asia the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of it is still câ—lled the Church of that City as the Church at Antioch the Church at Corinth and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together they are the 7 Churches but when spoken to single it is the Church of Ephesus the Church of Smyrna c. Which being spoken without any discrimination as to the difference of these places in greatness and capacity or the number of Believers in them doth evidently discover that what number soever they were they were all but the Church of that City For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus Sardis Pergamus and Laodicea which were great and populous Cities than in Thyatira and Philadelphia which were much less especially considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephesâ—s and the mighty success which he had in preaching there which will amount to no great matter if in three years time he converted no more than made up one single Congregation And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power and prevalency of the Gospel I cannot but wonder what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province as Galatia and Macedonia he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations who denies that but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City though never so great made but one Church and uncontroulable evidence from Antiquity that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City All that he saith further to this matter is that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves because in every one of them Elders were ordained Act.
species of Churches without God's Authority 3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches 1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church This I begin with because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others for in Saint Cyprian 's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world and that the Bishops there were the most godly faithfull peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times And of the following times he thus speaks Most of the African Councils saith he were the best in all the world Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils no Bishops being faithfuller than they Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised I shall lay down these two Observations Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them That there was to be but one Bishop in a City though the City were never so large or the Christians never so many This one Observation made good quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis For upon his principles where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence as he speaks there either they must alter the instituted species of Government or they must have more Bishops than one in a City For he saith the Church must be no bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach and have Conversation with But that this was not so understood in the African Churches appears by their strict observance of this Rule of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it will appear by this one Instance That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City and that was the Schism of the Donatists upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome had it not been fair to have divided them or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share But instead of this how doth Saint Cyprian even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian as Saint Augustin calls him aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City where there was one chosen before His words are so considerable to our purpose that I shall set them down Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already who ought to be alone he is not another Bishop but none at all Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can What! in such a City of Christians as Rome then was where were 46 Presbyters to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times and I am apt to think knew as well the Constitution of Churches then thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius and there tells him how far they had proceeded and what mischief this would be to the Church since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms After the election of Cornelius some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party and were received back again at a solemn Assembly where they confessed their fault and declared That they were not ignorant that as there was but one God and one Christ and one Holy Ghost so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius who would have it understood of one Pope but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church there ought to be but one Bishop in a City After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was that was chosen in his place And the necessity of this Vnity he insists on elsewhere and saith Our Saviour so appointed it unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy saying all the Apostles were equal and a little after Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that these holy men these Martyrs and Confessors men that were indeed dying daily and that for Christ too were all agreed that a Bishop there must be and that but one in a City though never so large and full of Christians Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus with this Proviso that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop and the other to have another People provided for him For which Saint Augustin commends him as an excellent man a true Son of Peace and Father of Christian People By which we see the best the wisest the most moderate Persons of that time never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Rule on both sides was but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese and if there had been any new made to increase
their number as it was objected on both sides if it were proved they were not to be allowed for generally then every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties but in some places they had but one where the People were of one mind and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa both Parties striving to increase their Numbers Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places Carthage was a very large City and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time as I have already shewed And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major Restituta in which the Bishops always sate as Victor Vitensis saith there were several other considerable Churches in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage as the Basilica Fausti the Basilica Leontiana the Basilica Celerinae mentioned by Victor likewise who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum The Basilica Novarum The Basilica Petri. The Basilica Pauli And I do not question there were many others which I have not observed for Victor saith that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop maximam turbam Clericorum a very great multitude of Clergy all which he immediately banished And without the City there were two great Churches saith Victor one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom and the other where his body was buried at a place called Mappalia In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage taking in those who were trained up to it And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion as he calls it in one Church and at one Altar Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop and so setting up one Altar against another was setting up one Bishop against another as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate and so there were as many Altars as Churches So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist that in the City where he was Bishop the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence that not onely the Oblations were made there and the Communion received but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin which I have mentioned elsewhere but from Optatus who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers for saith he illà c ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove In the African Code there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside which evidently proves that there were not onely more places but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks as they often did the African Council decrees that after the decease of such a Bishop if the People had no mind to have another in his room they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop Which shews that they thought the Dioceses might be so large as to hold the People that were under two Bishops And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops In one it was determined that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them without limitation of distance after that that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before but if the Donatist Bishop were converted then the Diocese was to be divided between them If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese he that did take the pains in it was to have those places laid to his Diocese unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop that he was not to blame Let Mr. Baxter now judge whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes as he confidently affirms Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government and he tells this particular story of it that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there the man did accordingly and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman President to complain of their insolence and to crave his assistance which he saith he did lest he should be blamed for his negligence who was the Bishop of that Diocese And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena and he saith he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will to be better instructed as being under his care but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away himself upon which he writes a long Epistle to him In another Epistle he gives an account that there was a place called Fussala which with the Country about it belonged to the Diocese of Hippo where there was abundance of People but almost all Donatists but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them those places were all reduced but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo he took care to have a Bishop placed among them but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop he was fain to resume it as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala which he mentions afterwards However it appears that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint
and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him And it is no hard matter to guess what answer Saint Augustin would have given him But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches Quidam de Episcopis in Provinciâ nostrâ saith Saint Cyprian and yet he speaks of his Predecessours times which shews the very ancient extent of that Province In provinciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates saith he again which shews that more Cities than Carthage were under his care Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra in his Epistle to Cornelius In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration Victor mentions one Crescens who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onely in these parts of Africa let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points but had some for the right Constitution of Churches and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him It is observed by Epiphanius that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches especially those in Maraeotis of which Athanasius himself gives the best account Maraeotis saith he is a Region belonging to Alexandria which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself whence we observe 1. That here were true Parochial Churches for so Athanasius calls them Churches and not bare Oratories 2. That these had Presbyters fixed among them who performed divine Offices there 3. That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belonged to him 4. That these were at that distance that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy So in Alexandria it self there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them as Epiphanius several times observes and it would be a very strange thing indeed if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop But Mr. Baxter's great argument is from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity whence he concludes that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly Whereas all that Athanasius saith amounts to no more than this that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches the People grew impatient and so at last he yielded to them But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present and that this Church would hold them all If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion and finding themselves too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London Athanasius saith not a word more than that it was Easter and there appeared a great number of People such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City Doth he say or intimate that all the Christians of the City were present that none of them went to the lesser Churches or were absent though the Croud was so great Doth he not say the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them But the argument is of greater force in this respect that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church But to serve this hypothesis Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great City and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exceeding great City so great that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past mens comprehension and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great persecution when he was banished he kept up the Assemblies in the City and at Cephro he had a large Church partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him and partly from other places and when he was removed thence to Colluthion which was nearer the City such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him that they were forced to have distinct Congregations so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie and so Athanasius useth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Christians meeting in several Congregations If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before under the sharpest persecution is it possible to imagin in so great a City after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation There is no hopes of convincing men that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities I shall onely add one Instance more from Antiquity which is plain enough of it self to shew the
great extent of Diocesan Power then and that is of Theodoret a great and learned Bishop and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches for so many Parishes saith he are in my Diocese which he had then enjoyed twenty six years Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret And yet these Parishes did not change their species for he saith they were Churches still This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle But without any considerable ground unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis For what if Theodoret ' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy Is that a sufficient argument to reject them unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles with the History of those times or with his other Writings Which are the Rules Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death And it is supposed that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him which was the occasion of writing it his other Epistles are so full of it that Mr. B. never read the rest if he calls this into question upon that account That Hypatius Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost which Nicephorus saw doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit But he is much mistaken if he thinks there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples which he compared with the Vatican and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret ' s name Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie to be spurious What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret ' s Works I do not well understand unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them But there are two things he objects which seem more material 1. That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time 2. That he proves from other places in Theodoret that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches 1. As to the first certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove that one such City as Cyrus then was had 800 Churches in it But by Cyrus Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus as will afterwards appear If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy Strabo and Pliny then there would not appear the least improbability in it since many considerable Cities were within it as Beroea now Aleppo and Hierapolis and extended as far as Euphrates Zeugma being comprehended under it The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others in that Province there was a Metropolitan who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus or Cyrrhus But notwithstanding I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province but of his own peculiar Diocese for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City which was under Theodoret's care within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order as he complains in several Epistles and there it is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regio Cyrrhestica and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius where he saith it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth And he saith in another Epistle that Christianity was then so much spread among them that not onely the Cities but the Villages the Fields and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown In his Epistle to Nomus he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion another with the Eunomian another with the Arian Heresie which were all converted by his care and in another place he saith he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion ' s Doctrine in his Diocese and the great pains he took to root it out and the success he had therein And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives as Tillima Targala Nimuza Teleda Telanissus which are sufficient to shew that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches his Diocese being forty miles in length and as many in breadth So that Mr. B. must reject not onley that Epistle to Leo but the rest too and his other Works if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy which is too hard a task to be undertaken without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought 2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses which all men know to have been very different but about the extent of Episcopal Power whether it were limited to one Parochial Church or was extended over many And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this I extreamly failed of my expectation as to the other places of Theodoret which he promised to produce For I find five or six places
repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy We intend no quarrel about names If it be Mr. B. ' s pleasure to call our Bishops Archbishops let him enjoy his own fancy It already appears from Saint Cyprian and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needfull that the Bishops of the several Churches were looked on as Successours to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches Now the Office of Mr. B. ' s Parochial Bishops was onely to attend to one particular Congregation but the Apostolical Office was above this while the Apostles held it in their own hands and did not make a new species of Churches nor overthrow the Constitution of Parochial Churches It seems then a strange thing to me that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church should be called the devising a new species of Churches But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordinary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Churches but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters and leaves them onely a bare name of Curates and destroyes the being of Parochial Churches But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in Peoples minds against it Sect. 12. Now to examin this let us consider two things 1. What Power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops of our Church have over them I. What Power is left to presbyters in our Church and that may be considered two ways 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church 2. With respect to their particular Congregations or Cures 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church and so 1. There are no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Divine Service are to be allowed or received in this Nation but by the Constitution of this Church the Presbyters of it have their Votes in passing them either in Person or by Proxy For all things of that Nature are to pass both Houses of Convocation and the lower House consists wholly of Presbyters who represent the whole Presbytery of the Nation either appearing by their own Right as many do or as being chosen by the rest from whom by Indentures they either do or ought to receive Power to transact things in their names And the Custom of this Church hath sometimes been for the Clergy of the Dioceses to give limited Proxies in particular Cases to their Procuratours Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether the Clergy of this Church have their whole Power swallowed up by the Bishops when yet the Bishops have no power to oblige them to any Rules or Canons but by their own consent and they do freely vote in all things of common concernment to the Church and therefore the Presbyters are not by the Constitution deprived of their share in one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. in making Rules for the whole Body And in this main part of Government the Bishops do nothing without the Counsel of their Presbyters and in this respect our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches which had their Councils of Presbyters together with their Bishops onely there they were taken singly in every City and here they are combined together in Provincial Synods model'd according to the Laws of the Nation And when the whole Body of Doctrine Discipline and Worship are thus agreed upon by a general consent there seems to be far less need of the particular Councils of Presbyters to every Bishop since both Bishops and Presbyters are now under fixed Rules and are accountable for the breach of them 2. In giving Orders by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to assist the Bishops and to examin the Persons to be Ordained or the Bishop in their presence and afterwards to joyn in the laying on of hands upon the Persons ordained And is all this nothing but to be the Bishop's Curates and to officiate in some of his Chapels 2. As to their particular charges one would think those who make this objection had never read over the Office of Ordination for therein 1. For the Epistle is read the charge given by Saint Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act. 20. or the third Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great impertinency had both these been if the Presbyters Power had been quite swallowed up by the Bishops But it hence appears that our Church looked on the Elders at Ephesus and the Bishop in Timothy to be Presbyters as yet under the care and Government of the Apostles or such as they deputed for that Office such as Timothy and Titus were Which I suppose is the true meaning of Saint Ierome and many other doubtfull passages of Antiquity which relate to the community of the names of Bishop and Presbyter while the Apostles governed the Church themselves And at this time Timothy being appointed to this part of the Apostolical Office of Government the Bishops mentioned in the Epistle to him may well enough be the same with the Presbyters in the Epistle to Titus who was appointed to ordain Elders in every City Titus 1. 5. 2. In the Bishop's Exhortation to them that are to be ordained he saith Now we exhort you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ to have in remembrance into how high a dignity and to how chargeable an Office ye be called that is to say the Messengers and Watchmen the Pastours and Stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed and provide for the Lord's Family c. have always therefore printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge for they be the Sheep of Christ which he bought with his death and for whom he shed his bloud The Church and Congregation whom you must serve is his Spouse and Body And if it shall chance the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hinderance by reason of your negligence you know the greatness of the fault and of the horrible punishment which will ensue c. Is this the language of a Church which deprives Presbyters of the due care of their flocks and makes Parochial Congregations to be no Churches 3. The person to be ordained doth solemnly promise to give faithfull diligence to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God so that he may teach the People committed to his Cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here we see a Cure and charge
committed to the Presbyters Preaching and Administration of Sacraments required of them and the exercise of Discipline as far as belongs to them of which afterwards but now in the Consecration of a Bishop this part is left out and instead of that it is said That he is called to the Government of the Church and he is required to correct and punish such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous in his Diocese So that the more particular charge of Souls is committed to every Pastour over his own Flock and the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop as that which especially belongs to his Office as distinct from the other Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be considered viz. What Authority the Bishop hath by virtue of his Consecration in this Church And that I say is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority which lies in three things Government Ordination and Censures And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office I shall make appear by these things 1. In the Preface before the Book of Ordination it is said That it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authours that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons What is the reason that they express it thus from the Apostles time rather than in the Apostles times but that they believed while the Apostles lived they managed the affairs of Government themselves but as they withdrew they did in some Churches sooner and in some later as their own continuance the condition of the Churches and the qualification of Persons were commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto Of which we have an uncontroulable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist and all their removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few But as they went off so they came to be settled in their several Churches And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the different Testimonies of Antiquity For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Saint Cyprian and others are so plain hereby room is left to make good all that Saint Ierom hath said and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at first So that we may allow for the Community of names between Bishop and Presbyter for a while in the Church i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves but afterwards that which was then part of the Apostolical Office became the Episcopal which hath continued from that time to this by a constant succession in the Church 2. Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church As for this part of the Apostles function saith he to visit such Churches as were before planted and to provide that such were placed in them as were vertuous and godly Pastours I know it remaineth still and is one of the chief parts of the Bishops function And again there is now no planting of Churches nor going through the whole world there is no writing of new Gospels no prophesying of things to come but there is Governing of Churches visiting of them reforming of Pastours and directing of them which is a portion of the Apostolical function Again Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is ceased yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City by moderating and Governing them by visiting the Churches by cutting off schisms and contentions by ordering Ministers remaineth still and shall continue and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops as most meet men to execute the same Bishop Bilson fully agrees as to these particulars 1. That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands 2. That upon experience of the confusion and disorder which did arise through equality of Pastours did appoint at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops 3. That these Bishops did succeed the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches as he proves at large and therefore he calls their function Apostolick Instead of many others which it were easie to produce I shall onely add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason In his third Paper to Henderson he hath these words Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be always so it is in the Apostles times now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour In his first Paper at the Treaty at Newport he thus states the case about Episcopal Government I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God and of an Apostolical Institution as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successours therein as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines he saith that meer Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis onely they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching Administration of Sacraments publick Prayer Exhorting Rebuking c. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis Pastorum too having the oversight of Flock and Pastours within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government And that although the Apostles had no Successours in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraordinary in them as namely the Measure of their Gifts the extent of their charge the infallibility of their Doctrine and the having seen Christ in the flesh but in those things that were not extraordinary and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times as the Office of Teaching and the Power of Governing are they were to have and had Successours and therefore the learned and godly Fathers
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
had the judgment of a whole Council of African Bishops for their deserting him 4. For a notorious matter of fact viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession 5. All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this doth amount to no more than that the People were most concerned to give Testimony as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People to hear what they had to object against them and said it was a hard case when the Christians and Iews did so about their Priests the same should not be done about Governours of Provinces who had mens lives and fortunes in their hands But no man could ever from hence imagin that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governours of Roman Provinces Origen saith The Peoples presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop it must be astante Populo the People standing by and this is that Saint Paul meant when he said A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop by the Divisions of the People that they were like to have shaken the Emperour's Kindness to the Christians For such a flame was kindled by it that he saith it was near destroying both the Church and the City and they had certainly drawn Swords if the Providence of God and fear of the Emperour had not restrained them Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet and after much trouble to the Emperour and many meetings of Bishops at last Eustathius was chosen Greg. Nazianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop saying it came to a dangerous sedition and not easy to be suppressed and he saith the City was very prone to it on such occasions And although there was one Person of incomparable worth above the rest yet through the Parties and Factions that were made it was a hard matter to carry it for him He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections that he wishes them alter'd and the Elections brought to the Clergy and he thinks no Common-wealth so disorderly as this method of Election was Evagrius saith the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable upon the division of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius the People rising against the Magistrates and Souldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order and at last they murthered Proterius Such dangerous Seditions are described at Constantinople upon the Election of Paulus and Macedonius by Sozomen and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius and after the death of Atticus by Socrates and after the deprivation of Nestorius And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius and about the Election of Flavianus at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom at Verselles by Saint Ambrose at Milan by Socrates and many other places I shall onely adde a remarkable one at Rome on the choice of Damasus which came to bloodshed for several days and is particularly related by Ammianus Marcellinus and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the Peoples consenting Power and so there are in all humane affairs But are these tolerable inconveniencies Is this Power still to be pleaded for in opposition to Laws as though Religion lay at stake and onely Magistrates were bad men and the People always good and wise and vertuous A man must have great spite against Men in Power and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wicked debauched and enemies to Piety and at the same time dissemble and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People besides their Ignorance and incapacity of judging in such matters and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreasonable contentions on such occasions But Saint Chrysostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases Saint Hierom saith they are apt to choose men like themselves and saith elsewhere they are much to be feared whom the People choose Origen saith the People are often moved either for favour or reward 3. That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters as Saint Ierom and others shew For by the Constitution of that Church before the alteration made by Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria was not onely to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters but by them So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs saith that after the death of their Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to election and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop and to the other Bishops to consecrate him To which the Bishops assented onely saying if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose but not otherwise Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the time of the Nicene Council and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith the custom was alter'd by a Council among themselves which determin'd that they might choose the most deserving person whether of that Body or not And there could be no room for popular elections whereever that Custom obtained which the Counterfeit Ambrose speaks of ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding But if this be onely a particular conceit of that Authour yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches without any mention of choice made by the People So when Narcissus retired from Ierusalem Eusebius saith the neighbour Bishops assembled and consecrated one Dius in his room and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius in whose time Narcissus returned but being grown very old Alexander was brought in to assist him by Revelation and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successour and acquainted the Clergy with it but not the People great disturbance was feared hereupon the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them and to settle their new Bishop who went and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly S. Augustin himself declares the sad effects he had often seen of the Churches Election of Bishops through the ambition of some
Ages and at last among us the royal Power overthrowing the other reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parlaments the Consent of the People is swallowed up therein since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation For not onely the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage derived from his Ancestours before the freedom of elections was granted Which shews not onely the great Antiquity of this Right but the consent of the whole Nation to it And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said That the King did dispose of them jure suo Regio by his Royal Prerogative as his Ancestours had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People than here in England and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here As to the inferiour Right of Patronage it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters as in a College together a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Country Presbyters c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice In the time of the first Council of Orange A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches c. 10. viz. If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno. A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk And the same were settled in the Western Church as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage and the endowments of Churches till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented and to give institution to the Benefice The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX plead That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage from the first planting of Christianity here For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built and at whose cost and charges they were erected and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves And this Ioh. Sarisburiensis saith was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us And the onely Questions now remaining are whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their own Pastours and supposing that it might be done whether it be reasonable so to doe And I conclude that 6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections 1. because it was no unalterable Right but might be passed away and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations and 2. because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings but may be remedied by Laws far easier than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves which cannot be done in a divided Nation without throwing all into remediless confusion 3. Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence Beza declaims against it as a thing without any ground in Scripture or any right in Antiquity and subject to infinite disorders In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King and so are the Bishops in Denmark In other Lutheran Churches the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates and in these the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State which hath Power to depose them And it would be very strange if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onely be discovered here where it is as unfit to be practised as in any part of the Christian world But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter for when the objection is put by him That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power and therefore they now consent he saith this seemeth a Iest for he saith 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power 2. They never consented that Parlaments should do what they list and dispose of their Souls or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls 3. They may as well say that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting 5. The obligation on the People was Personal and they have not God's consent for the transmutation So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves and all Rights of Advowson in the King or Noblemen and Gentlemen or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations and things utterly unlawfull among Christians since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny that the freedom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them do lie within the Magistrates Power and so binding Laws may be made about them unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives And if these may be justly settled by Laws then the
up to a persecution of them There had been some color for this if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon and never intend to read it and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it They resolved to condemn it and therefore would see nothing that might have alter'd their Sentence It is enough it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters Noâ—e are so incapable of Conviction as those who presently determine what a thing must be without considering what it is Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before great Generals Which is just as reasonable as to suppose that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon it self for their own satisfaction But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present It seems they soon heard enough of it by the Noise and Clamor they made about it Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists for us to quarrel among our selves Would to God this advantage had never been given them And Woe be to them by whom these offences come And what must we do Must we stand still with open Arms and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us Must we suffer our selves to be run down with a Popular fury raised by Reviling Books and Pamphlets and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication lest the Papists should overhear us Which is as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny for fear the Enemy should take notice and make some advantage of it But which will be the greater advantage to him to see it spread and increase or care taken in time to suppress it If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active and busie than formerly if they had not both by publick Writings and secret Insinuations gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church and the Members of it so disingenuously as they have done there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon But when those things were notorious to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then or now to defend it is in effect to tell us they may say and do what they will against us at all seasons but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable Which under favor seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side for it is like setting us in the Pillory for them to throw dirt at us without allowing us any means to defend our Selves But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it But Wherein doth it lie Not in raking into old Sores or looking back to the proceedings of former times Not in exposing the particular faults of some Men and laying them to the charge of the whole Party Not in sharp and provoking reflections on Mens Persons All these I purposely and with care declined My design being not to exasperate any but to perswade and argue them into a better disposition to Union by laying open the common danger we are in and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists by another that indeed I do not bespeak for them Gibbets Whipping-posts and Dungeons nor directly any thing grievous to their flesh but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them in respect of their Everlasting State God forbid that I should Iudge any one among them as to their present sincerity or final condition to their own Master they must stand or fall but my business was to consider the nature and tendency of their Actions My Iudgment being that a causless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it and herein having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern Would they have had me represented that as no sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it or Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessen'd their sense of it No I had seen too much of this already and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men otherwise scrupulous and conscientious that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin as if there neither were nor could be any such thing unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation Which is so mean so jejune so narrow a Notion of Schism so much short of that Care of the Churches Peace which Châ—ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfy'd with it unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings And that I confess is a shrew'd temptation But so far as I can judge as far as the Obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism â—each and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace which is as far as is possible and as much as lies in us Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it is directly the Sin of Schism or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church And this is not to be determined by Mens fancies and present apprehensions which they call the Dictates of Conscience but upon plain and evident grounds manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion than joyn in the practice of such things We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome than they have against ours and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them if we had no better grounds to proceed upon than they
this tast let the Reader Iudge what Ingenuity I am to expect from this Man The Last who appeared against my Sermon is called the Author of the Christian Temper I was glad to find an Adversary pretending to that having found so little of it in the Answers of Mr. B. and Mr. A. His business is To commit the Rector of Sutton with the Dean of St. Paul's which was enough to make the Common People imagine this was some busie Justice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian Temper which the Author pretends to For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with in a Book written twenty years since with great tenderness towards the Dissenters before the Law 's were Establish'd As though as Mr Cotton once answered in a like case there were no weighty Argument to be found but what might be gather'd from the weakness or unwariness of my Expressions And Have you not very well requited the Author of that Book for the tenderness and pitty he had for you and the concernment he then expressed to have brought you iâ— upon easier terms than were since required And Hath he now deserved this at your hands to have them all thrown in his face and to be thus upbraided with his former kindness Is this your Ingenuity your Gratitude your Christian Temper Are you afraid of having too many Friends that you thus use those whom you once took to be such Methinks herein you appear very Self-denying but I cannot take you to be any of the Wisest Men upon Earth When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and farther consideration those Divines of the Assembly who then opposed Separation should change their Opinions Will you not allow one single Person who happen'd to Write about these matters when he was very young in twenty years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his life to see reason to alter his Iudgment But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the Point of Separation which is the present business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon Which will appear by these particulars in it 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such practises which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are New Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from that form they separate from 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undeterâ—in'd by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governors of the Church Allow but these Three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Why then do you make such a stir about other passages in that Book and take so little notice of these which are most pertinent and material Was it not possible for you to espy them when you ransacked every Corner of that Book to find out some thing which might seem to make to your purpose And yet the very first passage you quote is within two Leaves of these and Two passages more you soon after quote are within a Page of them and another in the very same Page and so many up and down so very near them that it is impossible you should not see and consider them Yes he hath at last found something very near them for he quotes the very Pages where they are And he saith he will do me no wrong for I do distinguish he confesses between Non-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practises in a Church and entering into distinct Societies for Worship This is doing me some right however although he doth not fully set down my meaning But he urges another passage in the same place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But Will not this equally hold against our Church if it Excommunicates those who cannot conform I Answer 1. Our Church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites For it allows them to Communicate in other parts of Worship as appeared by all the Non-conformists of former times who constantly joyned in Prayers and other Acts of Worship although they scrupled some particular Ceremonies 2. The case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others Separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of this Church For that is all which can be inferred from the Canons For in the former case it is not a lesser Excommunication denounced as it is only in our case against Publick and scandalous Offenders which is no more than is allowed in all Churches and is generally supposed to lay no obligation till it be duly executed though it be latae sententiae ipso facto but in the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema so as to pronounce us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to and continue in their Communion and this was it which that Author meant by being wholly cast out of Communion i. e. with the greatest and highest Church Censure 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Although therefore he might allow a scrupulous forbearance of some Acts of Communion as to some suspected Rites yet upon the Principles there asserted he could never allow Mens proceedings to a Positive Separation from the Communion of our Church And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Pauls But if any thing in the following Treatise be found different from the sense of that Book I do intreat them to allow me that which I heartily wish to them viz. that in Twenty years time we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts as to see reason to change our opinion of some things and I wish I had not Cause to add of some Persons too There is one thing more which this Author
as to the Sign of the Cross as it is used in our Church notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament and I know not what but of this at large in the following Treatise 2 I see no ground for the Peoples separation from other Acts of Communion on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act as the Cross in Baptism is not and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper as is in the Rubrick after the Communion 3 Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a freedom in joyning in full Communion with us which may be done either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross or if that may give offence to others by confining the use of it to the publick administration of Baptism or by leaving it indifferent as the Parents desire it As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper since some Posture is necessary and many devout People scruple any other and the Primitive Church did in antient times receive it in the Posture of Adoration there is no Reason to take this away even in Parochial Churches provided that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it with the least offence to others and rather standing than sitting because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other And as to Cathedral Churches there is no necessity of alteration But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism viz. the Use of God-fathers and God-mothers excluding the Parents Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples either by permitting the Parents to joyn with the Sponsors or by the Parents publickly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism or which seems most agreeable to Reason that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part representing the Child and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors These things being allowed I see no obstruction remaining as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us in all Acts of Divine Worship and Christian Communion as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful 2. But because there are many of those who are become zealous Protestants and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine although they cannot joyn with us in Worship because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies and the right constitution of our Churches their case deserves some consideration whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us To their Case I answer First That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us and in the end Popery as I have shewed already and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration Secondly If any present Favours be granted to such in consideration of our circumstances and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists for a general Toleration for if ever the Papists obtain it it must be under their Name if I say such favour be thought fit to be shewed them it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches by their declaring that our Churches are no true Churches that our Manner of Worship is unlawful and that our Church-Government is Antichristian and that on these accounts they separate from us and worship God by themselves But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted I humbly offer these things to consideration 1. That none be permitted to enjoy the priviledge of it who do not declare that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations 2. That all who enjoy it besides taking the Test against Popery do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith because the pretence of this Liberty is joyning with us in Points of Faith and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them 3. That all such as enjoy it must declare the particular Congregations they are of and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose that so this may be no pretence for idle loose and profane persons never going to any Church at all 4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties if they use any bitter or reproachful words either in Sermons or Writings against the established Constitution of our Churches because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences and the using this liberty will discover it is not Conscience but a turbulent factions humour which makes them separate from our Communion 5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches lest meer covetousness tempt Men to run among them and no persons so indulged be capable of any publick Office It not being reasonable that such should be trusted with Government who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful 6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which ought to be duly collected for the Vse of the Poor and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it 7. That the Bishops as Visitors appointed by Law have an exact Account given to them of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations with their Qualities and Places of Abode and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion by giving satisfaction to their scruples This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law 8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed
Reformation he declares That he did mightily approve a Certain Form from which Men ought not to vary both to prevent the inconveniencies which some Mens folly would betray them to in the free way of Praying and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be shewing some new things Let Mr. Br. now Judge Whether it were likely that the Controversie then at Frankford was as he saith between them that were for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free way of Praying when Calvin to whom the Dissenters appealed was so much in his Judgment against the latter And it appears by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done and he expresses his satisfaction that the matter was so composed among them when by Dr. Cox his means the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before he mentions Lights as required by the Book which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth So that either they deceived him who sent him the Abstract or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself the matter being ended contrary to his expectation For although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter the Order of Geneva had like to have been presently voted in yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service they were fain to compromise the matter and to make use of a Mixt Form for the present But Dr. Cox and others coming thither from England and misliking these Alterations declared That they were for having the Face of an English Church there and so they began the Letany next Sunday which put Knox into so great a Rage that in stead of pursuing his Text which was directly contrary he made it his business to lay open the nakedness of our Church as far as his Wit and Ill Will would carry him He charged the Service-Book with Superstition Impurity and Imperfection and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation want of Discipline with the business of Hooper allowing Pluralities all the ill things he could think on When Cox and his Party with whom at this time was our excellent Iewel were admitted among them they presently forbad Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor in a Book by him Published he was forced to leave the City and to retire to Geneva whither most of his Party followed him And thus saith Grindal in his Letter to Bishop Ridley The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox and others which met there for that purpose Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works that this Controversie was not carried with them out of England but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time as particularly Hooper who lived many years in Switzerland brought home with them a great liking of the Churches Model where they had lived which being such as their Country would bear they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplicity being far enough from any thing of Pomp or Ceremony which created in them an aversion to the Ornaments and Vestments here used So now upon this new Persecution those who had Friendship at Geneva as Knox and Whittingham or were otherwise much obliged by those of that way as the other English were who came first to Frankford were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Divine Service than of our own And when Men are once engaged in Parties and several Interests it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in especially when they have great Abettors and such whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them This is the True Foundation of those Unhappy Differences which have so long continued among us about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church For when Calvin and some others found that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation our Bishops proceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rules they did not cease by Letters and other wayes to insinuate that our Reformation was imperfect as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained So they called the Vse of those Ceremonies which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church Calvin in his Letter to the Protector Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation To go as far from Popery as they could and therefore what Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Popery were to be removed lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby but at last he yields to this moderation in the case That such Ceremonies might be reteined as were easie and fitted to the Capacities of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery Now by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed for it took away all those Ceremonies which were of late invention As in Baptism of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church it reserved in the Second Liturgy only the Cross after Baptism which was not so used in the Roman Church for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism and the Anointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it in stead of these our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism being of Uncontroulable Antiquity and not used till the Child is Baptized In the Eucharist in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome our Church hath only appointed Kneeling I say appointed for although Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventures time or after the fashion of Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation lest it should seem to recede from the Practise of Antiquity which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants In stead of the great number of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church it only retained a plain Linnen Garment which was unquestionably used in the times of St. Hierome and St. Augustin And lastly As to the Episcopal Habits they are retained only as
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers One would think that their warning had been fair but Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam The Lord have Mercy upon us 2. When the matter is throughly examined the difference between the Teachers and the old Separatists will be found not near so great as is pretended For what matter is it as to the nature of Separation whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or Vnlawful whether the Ministery of our Church be called a False Ministery or Insufficient Scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments which the old Separatists used only they are disguised under another appearance and put into a more fashionable dress As will be manifest by Particulars 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministry of our Church Sect. 4. I. Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons as Members of our Church to be unlawful For Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church And in the same Book he saith It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the Transient Sign of the Cross or for want of Godfathers c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who Separate in these things are not For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers which they take to be no small sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them And what is this but formal Separation But for all this Mr. B. may hold that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical for he saith it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practises and Persons if those be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them But here Mr. B. saith There is a necessity of departure and to joyn with other Pastors and therefore he must hold a formal Separation And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church that was never done by the greatest Separatists For they all held Communion in Faith with it And even Brown the Head of the old Separatists thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship and others thought they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion but not in Acts of Church Communion others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers though not in others and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful they must hold a necessity of Separation or that persons may be good Christians and yet be no Members of any Church For if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours If they declare themselves Members of another Church they own as plain a Separation as the old Separatists ever did if they do not and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members then they are Members of no Church at all So that if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they must either be Separatists or no good Christians upon their own Principles For saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country this were to exchange visible Christianity for visible at least Negative Paganism Now that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they are more forward to declare than I could have imagined In my Sermon I mentioned some passages wherein it seemed clear to me that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me some declaring in express terms That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches and of joyning to other Congregations And others saying That such a Concession viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful taken in their own sense will neither do them any harm nor us any service For as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 1. Many of them declare so and many declare otherwise And it 's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it 2. They dâ—clare Communion lawful but. Dâ— they declare Total Communion lawful The same Persons will tell us that both these Propositions are â—â—ue Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of Worship is so in others not And 3. Thâ—y will further tell us That Communion with some Parish chuâ—ches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines Preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together 1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful and that must be understood of any kind of Communion for the Second sort from whom they are distinguishâ—d hold total Communion unlawful and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's and the New-England way and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists 2. Those that do hold Communion lawful do it with so many restrictions and limitations that in practice it amounts to little more than the other For First It is only with some Churches and those it seems must be such as do not hold to our Constitution for he
Therefore this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so but till these are brought forth which never yet were or ever will be they must bear the blame of the Schism if they Separate on these accounts Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches rather than Communion with them which I have discover'd to be of that Nature as leads Men to the greatest Separation Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously and so need the less pains to discover their minds and those are II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful But there is a difference among these For First Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers but not in the Liturgy or any proper Act of Church-Communion This I have shewed was the Opinion of Robinson and the New-England Churches and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye who Wrote a Discourse about it and answered all Objections Yea he goes so far as to own the publick preaching as a great blessing to the Nation and he thinks the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent as they have liberty and opportunity the more publick and National Ministry But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People to be of another opinion which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them and he was a very sagacious Man Secondly Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship And some are arrived to that height that one of my Answerers confesseth That they refuse to hear him because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches It seems then they not only think it unlawful to hear us but to hear those who think it lawful and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry and our Ministers Antichristian which Mr. Nye was so far from owning that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian because the Articles of our Religion to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions are Orthodox and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down the State of the present Controversie as to Separation from our Communion will soon appear And any one may now discern 1. That I do not mean bare local Separation For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No I do assure him provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings as having a purer way of worship and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too who after his trifling manner talks of a bellum Parochiale as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it 2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine not determin'd by our Church upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it And I wonder who ever did But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination went no farther thâ—n the Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatcht but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty art made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism 3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live This is to Answer Mr. B's Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches and publick and private administrations of Sacraments But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner that they may go off the better with the common people And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes But what is all this to the purpose If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London than he wears in the Countrey Is he not the same Man for all that Are not David's Psalms the same whether they be Sung or Said Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune or as set by a Parish Clerk That which only looks like Argument and my business is to mind nothing else possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing That I say which looks like Argument is That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation This proceeds upon a mistake for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules suppose there are some different Customs among us What is this to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches To the choosing of new Pastors and sitting down as he speaks with purer Administrations All which this Man owns in his Book as their avowed Principles and Practices and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church with the different Modes of Worship among our selves He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner 4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches but have certain priviledges allowed them as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came But what have
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
occasional Communion with us to be lawful should not think themselves obliged to constant Communion From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord as Mr. B. saith That is a good ground so far as it goes But will it not carry a Man farther if he pursue it as he ought to do What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches and at the same time to declare That there is greater purity of Worship and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation But if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasional Presence at some times and in some Acts of Worship for saith Mr. Ball To use one Ordinance and not another is to make a Schism in the Church The only Example produced to justify such occasional Communion with defective Churches is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in the Iewish Synagogues and Temple But this is so far from being true that the old Separatists granted That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances living and dying a Member thereof and from thence they prove That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time And did not he declare That he came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfill it And that he complyed with Iohn 's Baptism because he was to fulfill all righteousness Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ierusalem as a Member of the Iewish Church and frequent the Synagogues Even at the Feast of Dedication though not instituted by the Law he was present as other Iews were Yea Did he not express more than ordinary zeal for purifying the outward parts of the Temple because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there as well as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use And Doth not the Apostle expresly say That he was made under the Law Where is there the least ground in Scripture to intimate that Christ only kept occasional and not constant communion with the Iewish Church What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses Chair Where did he ever bid them go thither when they could have no better but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Worship and better Means of Edification Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs Is there any pretence for greater Edification now to be mention'd with what the Disciples had to forsake the Iewish Assemblies for the love of Christ 's own Teaching Yet he would not have them to do that out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teaching Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples Occasionally and at certain Seasons but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies And so it was after his Passion till the Holy Ghost feâ—l upon them and they were then imploy'd to gather and form a new Church which was not done before and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes That we never read of Christ 's Praying together with his Disciples unless perhaps at his Transfiguration with three of his Disciples although we often read of his Praying alone So that no example can be mention'd which is more directly contrary to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds than that of our Blessed Saviour's which ought to be in stead of all others to us Sect. 19. 2. I argue from the particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things From whence it appears evident that Men ought to go as far as they can towards Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity To take off the force of the Argument from this place several Answers have been given which I shall now remove so that the strength of it may appear to remain notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it Some say That the Apostles words are to be understood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge and the different conceptions and opinions which they had concerning the Truths of the Gospel Thus Dr. O. understands the Text whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expressed but as far as I can apprehend his meaning he makes this to be the Apostles viz. I. That although the best Christians in this life cannot attain to a full measure and perfection in the comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel or the enjoyment of the things contained in them yet they ought to be pressing continually after it II. That in the common pursuit of this design it is not to be supposed but the Men will come to different attainments have different measures of light and knowledge yea and different conceptions or opinions about these things III. That in this difference of opinions those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other as far as they had attained they should walk by the same Rule namely which he had now laid down and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them From whence he infers That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with Schism who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel do yet dissent from others in some things that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded And again he saith The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties is that whereunto they have attained wherein they do agree which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things that is forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ which saith he is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists For the clearing of this matter there are Three things to be debated 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or different practises 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual forbearance 3. How far the Apostles Rule hath an influence on our present case First Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or of different practises For the right understanding of this we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution
all partakers of that one Bread And by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body whether we be Iews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit The Vnity of the Christian Church St. Paul saith is to be preserved by the bond of Peace and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head whom he calls One Lord so they are joyned together by One Faith and One Baptism Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds as well as Internal that is One Faith and One Baptism as well as One Lord and One Spirit so the manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by External Acts for How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual as inward love to the Members of the Body being present in Spirit c Therefore the Obligation to preserve the Vnity of the Church doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion 3. Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient Reason for it Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoyned we are to suppose it still to hold where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear Although God hath with great severity forbidden Killing yet when himself appointed particularly cases wherein Mens Lives were to be taken away we are thereby assur'd that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden so in the present case if it appear that although Separation from the Câ—mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin But then as in the former case no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice so here no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end will justifie his Separation for the guilt of the sin remains as great in it self And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church which our Saviour prayed for and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere From hence Irenaeus saith That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own advantage than the Churches Vnity who for slight causes or for any make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ and do what in them lies to destroy it They speak for Peace saith he but they mean War they strain at a Gnat and swallow Camels The benefit they hope to bring to the Church cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism Nothing provokes God more saith St. Chrysostom than to divide his Church Nay saith he the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it The Mischief the Church receives by it is greater than it receives from open Enemies for the one makes it more glorious the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies when it is set upon by its own Children This saith he I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church If their doctrine be contrary to ours for that reason they ought to abstain if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to do it so much the rather Do no you know what Corah Dathan and Abiram suffer'd and not they only but those that were with them But you say they have the same Faith and they are very Orthodox Why then saith he do they Separate One Loâ—d one Faith one Baptism If they do well we do ill if we do well they do ill If they have the same Doctrines the same Sacraments For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours It is nothing but vain glory ambition and deceit Take away the People from them and you cut off the disease And after much more to that purpose I speak these things saith he that no Man might say he did not know it to be such a sin I tell you and testifie this to you that Separation from the Church or dividing of it is no less a sin than falling into Heresy If the sin then be so great and dangerous Men ought to examin with great care what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin And I do earnestly desire our Brethren as they love their own Souls and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us and set up other Churches in opposition to ours which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox and to agree with them in the same Doctrine and the same Sacraments 4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation First In the case of Idolatrous Worship For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church Neither be ye Idolaters Flee from Idolatry Keep your selves from Idols Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And to the case of Idolaters St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babylonians Come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing Now in this case where there is so plain a Command there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation if Men cannot joyn with a Church in their Religious Worship without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden Secondly In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body like putrid Members lest they should corrupt the rest St. Paul commands Titus when there is no hopes of reclaiming such to exclude them from the Society of Christians St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine Thirdly In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account And this was the case of the false Apostles who urged the
26 Canon which saith that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which he mentions as an abortive thing published by Iohn Fox which last any one that hath seen them knows to be a mistake nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt yet not so destroyed but with some diligence he might have seen it but it was for nothing of this kind that Book underwent so severe a censure as Mr. B. insinuates but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons which I think are plain in this case But Mr. B. saith this is not the lesser excommunication but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth this is certain the Minister is impowred is required to doe this the question then is whether this be not such a Censure of the Church as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister I grant this is not the lesser excommunication according to the Vse of this Church for that supposeth the sentence passed and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person upon extraordinary occasions But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication as appears by several passages in S. Augustin produced by Spalatensis to this purpose viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament Which is very true of the greater Excommunication but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders whereby they were suspended from full Communion but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given These were said to be in the state of Penitents It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion others onely on their death-beds others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance of which those were left to be Iudges who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of Church-communion but he saith the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull being still Candidates as he calls them so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion but not wholly cast out of the Church because the Christians might as freely converse with these as with any but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries But there was no question wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion there was a Power of Discipline because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged but in so governing the Members of the Church that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion it is thereby evident that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him I answer 1. What need this publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself is not this sufficient I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion he advised them to withdraw themselves from it till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences and then they might come to it Here is no publick Admonition by name and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders and yet the Church be a true Church and Christians obliged to communicate with it as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion But my design is onely to speak to this case so far as the Church is concerned in it Sect. 16. If it be said that notwithstanding this the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed I answer 1. That is not our question but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny And what other abuses have crept in ought in an orderly way to be reformed and no good man will deny his assistance in it 2. It is far easier to separate or complain for want of Discipline than to find out a due way to restore it No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it than Mr. Baxter hath done especially in that it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least 3. The case of our Churches now is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times For the great Reason of Discipline is not that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled for to assert that were Donatism but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as
preach notwithstanding the Laws can excuse them from Separation for this lies at the bottom of all 1. As to the Original inherent Right and Power of the People Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way he quotes a saying of F. Paul out of a Book of his lately translated into English that in the beginning the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person For was there not a Church to be formed in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end Where was the Church power then lodged Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed Were not then the several Pastours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them And if they had such Power and Authority over the People how came their Power to be derived from them as it must be if the Church Government then were Democratical Besides Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers and convey the Power of the Keys to them which never were in their hands And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons no more is required as to the People than barely their Testimony therefore it is said they must be blameless and men of good report But where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys must meet together and choose their Pastour and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves to them If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury for they have said no more of their Power in the Church than they have done of the Pope's It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle but were not the Women so too And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too Suppose not doth this prove that the Churches Power was then Democratical then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power which I do not think any man would say much less F. Paul As to the election of Deacons it was no properly Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock and was there not then all the reason in the world the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith he gave an account of it to all the Church And what then Must he therefore derive his power from it Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds But here is not all the Church mentioned onely those of the Circumcision at Ierusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert And what is this to the power of the Church But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders Apostles Priests and faithfull Brethren I grant it but is it not expresly said that the Question was sent up from the Churches to the Apostles and Presbyters Is it not said that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it and that the multitude was silent Is it not said that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters without any mention of the People And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power but in the other place it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made In success of time it is added when the Church increased in number the faithfull retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families and having left those of the Congregation the Government was retained onely in the Ministers and so became Aristocratical saving the election which was Popular Which account is neither agreeable to Reason nor to Antiquity For was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times How came it to be changed from that to a Democratical Form Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches and charged the People to obey them And was this an argument the Power was then in the People It was not then the People's withdrawing of which there can be no evidence if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power in Antiquity but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity but yet not such as to fix any inherent or unalterable Right in the People As I shall make appear by these following observations 1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church 3. That to prevent these many Bishops were appointed without their choice and Canons made for the better regulating of them 4. That when there were Christian Magistrates they did interpose as they thought fit notwithstanding the popular claim in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State 5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons 6. That things being thus settled by established Laws there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws If I can make good these Observations I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded concerning the Right and Power of the People which my Adversaries build so much upon 1. That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How much rather of the Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith
Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom So it is said concerning Timothy himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's taking him into the Office of an Evangelist So in the choice of the Deacons the Apostles bid them find out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of good reputation among them And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose where he gives an account how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe Here it is plain that they were of the Apostles appointment and not of the Peoples choice and that their Authority could not be from them whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern and although their number was but small at first yet as they increased though into many Congregations they were still to be under the Government of those whom the Apostles appointed over them And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others and he brings the Instance of Moses when there was an emulation among the Tribes what method he took for putting an end to it by the blossoming of Aarons Rod which saith he Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel and thereby to bring Glory to God now saith he the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church which the sense shews to be his meaning therefore foreseeing these things perfectly they appointed the persons before mentioned and left the distribution of their Offices with this instruction that as some died other approved men should be chosen into their Office Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith well-pleased discharging their Office with humility quietness readiness and unblameableness being men of a long time of good report we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office It seems some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal not onely on themselves but the Christian Church which made Clemens write this Epistle to them wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves than to continue making such a disturbance in it and if they were good Christians they would do so and bring more glory to God by it than by all their heat and contentions Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain 1. That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People but appointed by the Apostles or other great Men according to their Order 2. That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church about those who should bear Office in it 3. That all that the People had to doe was to give Testimony or to express their approbation of those who were so appointed For he could not allow their power of choosing since he saith the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it And it seems very probable to me that this was one great reason of the faction among them viz. that those few Popular men in that Church who caused all the disturbance represented this as a great grievance to them that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others and not chosen by themselves For they had no objection against the Presbyters themselves being allowed to be men of unblameable lives yet a contention there was and that about casting them out and such a contention as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordainâ—d and therefore it is very â—ikely they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen But it seems the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church took 〈…〉 them leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained And this is plain even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis to which Mr. Baxter refers me For the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onely to this giving Testimony therefore saith he God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ in the Presence of the People for what reason that they might give them Power no that was never done under the Law nor then imagined when S. Cyprian wrote but he gives the account of it himself that by their presence either their faults might be published or their good acts commended that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all The People here had a share in the Election but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person And therefore he saith it was almost a general Custom among them and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice that when any People wanted a Bishop the neighbour Bishops met together in that place and the new Bishop was chosen plebe praesente the People being present not by the Votes of the People quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit which best understands every mans Conversation and this he saith was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus who was put into the place of Basilides Where he doth express the Consent of the People but he requires the Iudgment of the Bishops which being thus performed he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus For Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry and joyned blasphemy with it had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick and desired onely to be received to Lay-Communion upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf that he might be restored Sabinus finding this makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the Peoples Power and yet here we are to consider 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned 2. Another Bishop was put into his room not by the Power of the People but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops 3. They
he denies the Supposition viz. that there is any such agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship he denies the first consequence and as though that were not sufficient he denies the remoter consequence too And what Argument can stand before a man of such prowesse in disputing 1. He denies an Agreement in Doctrine which I have already shewed was allowed by all Dissenters before him from the days of R. Brown to Mr. A. But we must not mistake him for as fierce as he seems to be at first yet let him but have scope to shew some tricks of Wit and trials of his skill in fencing and he is as tame and yielding as you would wish him for at last he confesses they generally agree with the Doctrine contained in the 39 Articles and but for meer shame he would have said all for I never heard of one before him made any scruple of it And this is the Doctrine established in this Church and if there be an Agreement in this then this Supposition is granted 2. As to substantial parts of Worship he denies an Agreement in this too although Dr. O. saith we are agreed in the substantial parts of Religion and I hope the parts of Worship are allowed to be some of them But he pretends not to know what we mean by the difference between the parts of Worship making some substantial and others circumstantial and then he offers to prove that our Church appoints new substantial parts of Worship and therefore he must know one from the other and after he hath spent some leaves in the proof of that at last he fairly concludes that there is a difference at least in a circumstantial part of Worship But because this is a weighty charge against our Church I shall take the more pains to consider it because the main objection against our Ceremonies lies under it and that which most sticks with the more sober Nonconformists Mr. A. 's charge about a substantial part of Worship being appointed by our Church is thus drawn up An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship Now this he chargeth our Church with but gives no instance but the sign of the Cross after baptism is that which he means which Mr. B. calls the transient dedicating Image of the Cross. For the clearing of this it will be necessary to shew 1. What we mean by a substantial part of Worship 2. How it appears that the sign of the Cross is made no substantial part of Worship by our Church 1. What we meanâ—â—y a substantial part of divine Worship For I have observed that the want of a clear and distinct notion of this hath been one of the greatest occasions of the Scruples of the most conscientious Non-conformists For being afraid of displeasing God by using any other parts of Worship than himself hath appointed and looking on our Ceremonies as real parts of divine Worship upon this reason they have thought themselves obliged in conscience at least to forbear the use of them The great principle they went upon was this that whatever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a real and substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was necessary to make a part of Worship their answer was that Divine Institution did not make that a part of Worship which was none but that to be a part of true Worship which otherwise would be a part of false Worship In the mean time they did not deny the lawfulness of the application of common circumstances to Acts of Religious Worship as Time and Place c. but the annexing any other Rites or Ceremonies to proper Acts of Religious Worship as the sign of the Cross to Baptism they supposed to be the making new substantial parts of Divine Worship and therefore forbidden by all those places of Scripture which imply the Scripture it self to be a perfect Rule of Worship This as far as I can gather is the strongest Plea of the Non-conformists side which I have represented with its full advantage because my design is if possible not so much to confute as to convince our Dissenting Brethren Let us then seriously consider this matter and if we can find out a plain discernible difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and mere accidental appendices this discovery may tend more to disentangle scrupulous minds than the multiplying of arguments to prove the lawfulness of our Ceremonies And that we may better understand where the difficulty lies these following things are agreed on both sides 1. That besides proper Acts of Worship there are some Circumstances which may be differently used without setting up new parts of Worship As for instance Adoration is a substantial and proper Act of Divine Worship but whether that Adoration be performed by prostration or by bowing or by kneeling is in it self indifferent and no man will say that he that makes his adoration kneeling makes another new part of Worship from what he doth who performs it standing or falling on his face And so if the Ancient Eastern Church did at certain times forbid kneeling in acts of Adoration this doth not prove that they differ'd in point of Adoration from the Western Church which requires kneeling in the same Offices of Divine Worship because they agreed in the act of Adoration but onely differ'd in the manner of expressing it 2. That Divine Institution makes those to be necessary parts of Worship which of themselves are not so As is plain in the Sacraments of the New Testament which of themselves are no necessary substantial parts of the worship of God but onely become so by being appointed by Christ. So under the Law many things meerly ritual and ceremonial in themselves yet by vertue of Divine appointment became substantial parts of Divine Worship 3. That for men to make new Parts of Divine Worship is unlawfull For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no fault and consequently that our Saviour without cause found fault with the Scribes and Pharisees for their Traditions 4. That there are many things which may be done in the Worship of God which are not forbidden to be done unless they be Parts of Divine Worship For if the supposed reason of their prohibition be their being made Parts of Divine Worship if it be made appear that they are not so then it follows they are not forbidden 5. That what is neither forbidden directly nor by consequence is lawfull and may be practised in the Worship of God For although Mr. A. quarrels with me for saying they require express Commands to make things lawfull in the Worship of God yet he allows that what is not required either directly or by consequence is unlawfull and by parity of Reason what
attribute Iustification to the Sacraments and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies However since they attribute so spiritual effects to them it is an argument they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship as much as they do on Prayer with which they compare them in point of efficacy But with what face can this be objected against our Church which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us and declares that they are no otherwise received in our Church than as they are purged from Popish Superstition and Errour And therefore all opinion of merit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship which being removed they remain onely naked Ceremonies i. e. as Cassander well expresses it Words made visible or teaching Actions whose design and intention being towards us and not towards God they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship although they be used in the performance of them As if the Christians in the East did wear the bâ—dge of a Cross upon their Arms at some solemn days as on good Friday at their devotions to distinguish them from Turks and Iews would any one say that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Worship So that the distinction between these two is not so hard to find if men apply their minds to the consideration of it 2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution If men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual effects and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as expresly as it is possible that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable and that changes and alterations may be made as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremoâ—â— any parts of Divine Worship than these things dâ— And thus I have at once shewed what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church For Mr. A. saith An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship I answer 1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another is no part of Divine Worship at all much less a substantial part of it There are some visible signs from God to men representing the effects of his Grace to us and those we call Sacraments there are other signs from men to God to testifie their subjection and dependence and these are acts of Worship and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action and these are significant Ceremonies such as the Cross in Baptism is For after the Child is baptized and received into the Church the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. To whom is this token made Is it to God no certainly If it were a permanent sign of the Cross would it be for a Testimony to God or to Men When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified was this a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace as the Sacraments are It represents the Duty and not the Grace the Duty is ours and may be represented by us but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that because he alone is the Giver of it 2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God but of obligation on the person It is true that in the 30 Canon it is said that this Church retains the sign of the Cross following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof we must consider That Baptism is declared to be compleat before so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it nor being omitted takes nothing from it as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church This therefore is no part of the Baptismal Dedication And the Minister acts in a double capacity when he doth baptize and when he signs with the sign of the Cross when he baptizeth he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. Which being done and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism he then speaks in the name of the Church varying the number We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one do make use of this sign of the Cross as the Rite of Admission into the Church and of his obligation to behave himself as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense as no doubt it was so intended all the difficulties about a Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign concerning which some have made so great a stir will soon appear to be of no force For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Let us suppose an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe
among them the Pastour of the Church then baptizes him and immediately after upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant he saith in the name of the Church we receive thee into this Congregation and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us What harm is there in all this And yet is not this a Professing Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person Is it not therefore dedicating covenanting and sacramental as much as the sign of the Cross Why then should this be scrupled more than the other And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross and as God's Officer from him and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church as evidently appears by those words We receive him into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and then follows as the solemn rite of Admission And do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. All publick and solemn Admissions into Societies having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churchs Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull as a transient arbitrary professing sign yet not as a dedicating sign and as the common professing symbol of baptized Persons If it be lawfull in the former sense I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter Yes saith he the instituting of the latter belongs to God onely How doth that appear Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end True but not onely for that end but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men which none but God himself can doe and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution which is the onely possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament because it is a professing sign of Reverence then laying on the hand and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments because they are publick symbolical Rites But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onely to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects Yet I hope every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians And is not every Church-member bound to perform these That which is peculiar is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members i. e. makes it necessary to none else and to shew it to be onely a solemn Rite of Admission it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient we need not devise more and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency If it be lawfull the Church is to judge of the expediency and not every private person And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Well saith Mr. B. but it is unlawfull on another account viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship and so forbidden in the Second Commandment He may as well make it unlawfull to use Words in God's Worship for are not they Images and represent things to our minds as well as a transient sign of the Cross Nay doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God as he instanceth in a Crucifix or historical Image of Christ or some holy man If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose what out-cries of Popery had been made against us How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted to shew that they went no further and desired no more than this Yet the transient sign of the Cross without any respect to Worship is condemned among us as forbidden by the Second Commandment and that by the same person and in the same page But it is used as a medium in God's Worship Is our Worship directed to it or do we kneel before it as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God No all these are rejected by our Church How then is it a medium in God's Worship Why forsooth it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship What as much as kneeling before a Crucifix and yet that is lawfull according to him supposing the mind be onely excited by it Suppose then we onely use the sign of the Cross to excite mens consideration in the act of Worship what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground But our Church allows not so much onely taking it for a lawfull outward Ceremony which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship For Mr. B. saith in the same place there is a twofold medium in God's Worship 1. Medium excitans that raises our minds to Worship God as a Crucifix c. 2. Medium terminans or as he calls it terminus in genere causae finalis a worshipped medium or the terminus or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment viz. to worship a Creature with mind or body in the Act of Divine Worship as representing God or as the mediate term of our Worship by which we send it unto God as if it were more acceptable to him So
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
the sign of the Cross at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images 2. For Circumcision which he tells us may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law that he saith If ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing which was never said of any of our Ceremonies And whereas he saith it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony he is much mistaken if their Emperour Claudius say true for he saith it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia and boreing the ear among the Indians And Ludolphus proves it to be no other because it is done by a woman in private without any witnesses 3. As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation But why are things never used by the Primitive Church for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false it is nothing to us brought to parallel our Ceremonies when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church which observed the same kind of Ceremonies The only remaining pretence for the present Separation is that there is a parity of reason as to their Separating from us and our Separating from the Church of Rome For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable then this will hold for themselves because they think so and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike When 1. They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true we reject all their additional Articles in Pius 4. his Creed not only as false but some of them as absurd and unreasonable as men can invent viz. that of Transubstantiation which is made by them the great trying and burning point But what is there which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine as new as false as absurd nay they all yield to the Antiquity to the Truth to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it You may be sure it is some mighty thing for he saith presently after it that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice Alas for him that his modesty should ever hurt him But what is this dangerous Secret that they have hitherto kept in out of meer veneration to the Church of England Let us prepare our selves for this unusual this killing charge Why saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church this Doctrine is contained It is matter of Doctrine then I see although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles as far as they concern Doctrine But what is this notorious doctrine It is saith he that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Did I not fear it was some dreadful thing some notorious heresie condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils But is it said so in plain words or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Consequences No it is plain enough for the Question is What is required of Persons to be baptized Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament Quest. Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform But I pray doth it hence follow that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Are not the words express that they promise both by their Sureties And is promising and performance all one I do not find it so by this Instance For here was a great matter promised and nothing performed It is true the Catechism saith Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptized which supposeth the persons to be baptized capable of performing these things themselves And then comes a Question by way of objection why then are Infants baptized c. to which the sense of the Answer is that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised And now let the Reader judge since this horrible Secret is come out whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church And I know nothing can do them greater Service than such Parallels as these 2. We charge them with those Reasons for Separation which the Scripture allows such as Idolatry perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ and Tyranny over the Consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so But not one of these can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God we worship no Images we invocate no Sains we adore no Host we creep to no Crucifix we kiss no Relicks We equal no traditions with the Gospel we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christs and to dispence with his Laws and Institutions We mangle no Sacraments nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a
quick motion of the hand We do not cheat mens souls with false bills of exchange called Indulgences nor give out that we have the Treasure of the Church in our keeping which we can apply as we see occasion We use no pious frauds to delude the People nor pretend to be infallible as they do when they have a mind to deceive These are things which the Divines of our Church have with great clearness and strength of Reason made good against the Church of Rome and since they cannot be objected against our Church with what face can men suppose the cases of those who separate from each of them to be parallel 3. As to the Ceremonies in the Roman Church and ours there are these considerable differences 1. They have a mighty number as appears by their Rituals and Ceremonials and the great volums written in explication of them we very few and those so very easie and plain that it requires as great skill not to understand ours as it doth to understand theirs 2. They place great holiness in theirs as appears by the Forms of consecration of their Water Oyle Salt Wax Vestments c. but we allow none of these but only the use of certain ceremonies without any preceding Act of the Church importing any peculiar holiness attributed to them 3. They suppose great vertue and efficacy to be in them for the purging away some sorts of sins we utterly deny any such thing to belong to our ceremonies but declare that they are appointed only for Order and Deceny 4. They make their ceremonies being appointed by the Church to become necessary parts of Divine Worship as I have already proved but our Church looks upon them even when determined as things in their own nature indifferent but only required by vertue of that general obedience which we owe to lawful Authority So that as to ceremonies themselves there is a vast disparity between the Roman Church and ours and no man can pretend otherwise that is not either grosly ignorant or doth not wilfully misunderstand the state of the Controversie between them and us Thus I have gone through all the Pleas for the present Separation I could meet with in the Books of my Answerers and I have not concealed the force or strength I saw in any of them And however Mr. A. reproaches me with having a notable talent of misrepresenting my Adversaries a thing which I have alwayes abhorred and never did it wilfully in my life it appearing to me an act of injustice as well as disingenuity yet I do assure him I have endeavoured to understand them truly and to represent them fairly and to judge impartially And although I make no such appeals to the day of Iudgement as others do yet I cannot but declare to the world as one that believes a day of Judgement to come that upon the most diligent search and careful Inquiry I could make into this matter I cannot find any Plea sufficient to justifie in point of conscience the present Separation from the Church of England Monseigneur DEux voyages que j'ay été obligè de faire m'ont empéché de répondre aussi tost que je l'aurois souhaitè a la lettre dont Vôtre Grandeur m'a fait la grace de m'honorer Comme j'étois sur le point de vous en faire des excuses Monsieur de L' Angle est arrivè en ceste ville quime les a fait encor differer dans l'esperance qu' il voudroit bien se charger de ma reponse qu' elle pourroit par ce moien vous étre plus fidellement rendue Il est vray Monsieur que si j'en croyois mon déplaisir je la remettrois encor a une autre fois car je ne peux vous ecrire sans un extreme douleur quand je songe a la matiere surla quelle vous me commandés de vous dire mon sentiment Ie croy que vous le sçavés dejá bien et que vous ne me faites pas l'honneur de me le demander comme en ayant quelque sorte de doute vous me faites plus de justice que cela vous ne me comprenéz pas au nombre de ceux qui ont touchant l ' Eglise d' Angleterre une si mechante opinion Pour moy je n'en avois pas une si mechante d'aucun veritable Anglois je ne pouvois pas me persuader qu' il y en eut un seul qui crût qu'on ne peut éstre dans sa communion sans hasarder son propre salut Pour ceux qui sont engagés dans le parti de l' Eglise Romaine j'en jugeois tout autrement Ils ont des maximes particuliers agissent par d'autres Interests Mais pour ceux qui n'ont aucune liaison avec Rome c'est une chose bien singuliere de les voir passer jusqu ' a cette extremitè que de croire que dans l' Eglise Anglicane on ne peut faire son salut C'est n'avoir gueres de conoissance de la Confession defoy que tout le monde Protestant a si hautement approuveé qui merite en effect les louanges de tout ce qu'il y a de bons Chrestiens Car on ne pouvoit rien faire de plus sage que cette Confession jamais les articles de foy n'ont eté recueillis avec un discernment plus juste plus raisonnable que dans cette excellentâ— piece On a raison de la garder avec tant de veneration dans la Bibliotheque d' Oxford le grand Iuellus pour l'avoir si dignement defendüe est digne d'une louange immortelle C'est d'elle dont Dieu se servit dans le commencement de la Reformation d' Angleterre si elle n'avoit pas été comme son ouvrage il ne l'auroit pas benit d'une façon si avantageuse Le succes qu' elle out devroit fermer la bouche a ceux qui sont les plus animés l'avoir veue trionpher de tant d' Obstacles devroit faire reconnoitre a tout le monde que dieu s'est declarè en sa faveur qu'il est visiblement mélé de son établissement qu'elle a la verité la fermeté de sa parole a qui elle doibt en effect sa naissance son origine Elle est aujourdhuy ce qu'elle ètoit quand elle â—toit formeé on ne peut pas reprocher a Messieurs les Evéques qu'ils y ayent depuis cette terme lá apporté quelque changement Et comment donc s'imaginer qu'elle ayt changé d'usage peut on rien voir de plus inique que de dire qu'un Instrument que Dieu employa autrefois pour l'instruction de tant de gens de bien pour le salut de de tant de peuples pour la
the party of the Church of Rome I judged quite otherwise of them they have particular Maxims and act by other interests But for those that have no tye to Rome it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extream as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith which all the Protestant World has so highly approved and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford and the great Iewell deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England And if it had not been as it were his work he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner The success that it has had ought to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate and it 's having triumphed over so many obstacles should make all the World acknowledge that God has declared himself in favour of it and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word to which in effect it owes its birth and original It is the same at present as it was when it was made and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time And how then can it be imagined that it has changed its use And can there be any thing more unjust than to say that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people for the consolation of so many good men for the salvation of so many believers is now become a destructive and pernicious thing If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent your Divine Service is so too for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry You adore nothing but God alone in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature And if there be some Ceremonies there which one shall not meet with in some other places this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity to put off all Charity not to know much what souls are worth not to understand the nature of things indifferent to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally that are willing to submit themselves unto them It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any For where has it been ever seen that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline and things that regard but the out-side and order of the Church and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth Can these things cause death and distill poyson into a soul Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths and as there is nothing but these that can save so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation For the Episcopal Government what is there in it that is dangerous and may reasonably alarm mens consciences And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory and shutting the Gates of Heaven who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government If it were contrary to the truth and the attainment of eternal happiness is it credible that God had so highly approved it and permitted his Church to be tyrannized over by it for so many Ages For who was it that did govern it Who was it that did make up its Councils as well General as particular Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted Was it not the Bishops And is it not to their wise conduct to which next under God his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was inveloped Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe In truth I think they might make the same use of this as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place but then his courage his zeal his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Hereticks that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it he would have to bear the name of Anastasia because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth and cleared it from the error that lay upon it and by his continual cares had caused it as it were to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection It is this too that the Bishops of England have done they saw not only one truth but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them than it was any where else The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design the enemies without and those within as terrible as they seem do not fright them they undertake this great work and do not leave it till they had brought it about and raised up the truth and placed it again upon the Throne in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection But if their Churches have not that title the thing it self belongs unto them and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these but lectures and praises of the pure truth Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it but to look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church Thus all the Protestants of France do those of Geneva those of Switzerland and German and those of Holland too for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort and shewed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England And from whence does it then come that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present and