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
the Gospel against those of the Separation which was part of that Book afterwards Published by W. R. and called A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists The Ground-work whereof as Mr. Ainsworth calls it is thus laid That the Church of England is a True Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever Wittingly and Continually Separateth himself Cutteth himself off from Christ. If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days those who live in ours ought well to consider it if they regard their Salvation And for this Assertion of theirs they bring Three Reasons 1. For that they Enjoy and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church i. e. Preaching of the Gospel and Administration of the Sacraments 2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith and Hold and Teach c. all Truths Fundamental So we put their Two Reasons into One because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith which say they is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church and admitted to the Priviledges thereof even by the Apostles themselves So the Church of Pergamus though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it yet because it kept the Faith of Christ was still called the Church of God 3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation the Position he laid down was this That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God Which he proved by this Argument Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation that is sufficient to make a Company of Men so gathered together to be a True Church But the whole Doctrine as it is Publickly Professed and Practised by Law in England is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation and our Publick Assemblies are therein gathered together Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assemblies True Churches And in the Defence of this Argument against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson that whole Disputation is spent And in latter times the Dispute between Ball and Can about the necessity of Separation runs into this Whether our Church be a True Church or not concerning which Ball thus delivers his Judgment True Doctrine in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith though mix't with Defects and Errors in other matters not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance though in the manner of Dispensation some things be not so well ordered as they might and ought are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church though somewhat crased in health and soundness by Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in Life and Manners The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on was Sect. 11. 2. That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it This will best appear by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery To which Giffard thus Answers The Church of England in the time of Popery was a Member of the Vniversal Church and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome nor took not her beginning of being a Church by Separating her self from that Romish Synagogue but having her Spirits revived and her Eyes opened by the Light of the Heavenly Word did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist with his Abominable Idolatry Heresies and False Worship and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith and True Service of God and so is a purer and more faithful Church than before Others add That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church and so to make a visible Church Neither were sufficient means wanting in our Case for the due Conviction of Mens Minds but then they add That the Question must not be Whether the Means used were the Right Means for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith but Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors whose Fellowship they had forsaken which they Iustifie by the Examples of Jehoshaphat and Josiah Asa and Hezekiah II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers using Popish Ceremonies c. To this they Answer 1. That it is evident by the Word That the Church hath used and might lawfully use in God's Worship and Prayer a stinted Form of Words and that not only upon Ordinary but Extraordinary Occasions which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit Nay they say They are so far from thinking them unlawful that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church they are many times more fit than those which are called Conceived Prayers 2. If Formes thus devised by Men be Lawful and Profitable What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church to Command that such Foâ—ms be used or for us that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them to use them unless they will say That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word Receive the Sacraments Believe the Trinity and all other Articles of Faith because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do Whereas indeed we ought the rather to do good things that are agreeable unto the Word when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate 3. It is true the Non-conformists say The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book but it followeth not thence that either it is or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil we cannot more credit the Man of Sin than to say That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichristian for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ to read the Scriptures to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book and yet be free from all fault and tincture from all shew and apperance of Evil though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass that both cannot possibly stand together Yea so many points saith
Bâ—ll are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery that it is not possible Popery should stand if they take place And saith he it is more proper to say the Mass was added to our Common Prayer than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World 4. As to the Fasts and Feasts and Ceremonies retained they Answer That what was Antichristian in them was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome which being taken away by the Reformation the things themselves are not Antichristian As namely saith Giffard the Remission of Sins and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross and such like things which the Papacy is full of but rejected by us III. That our Ministery was Antichristian To this they Answer 1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture not by his unlawful outward Calling or Office that he should exercise in the Church but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp to give Laws to Mens Consciences and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God Which two Marks of Antichrist as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised were faulty and unwarrantable by the Word yet you in your own Conscience know that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience neither is any thing among us urged to be done upon pain of Damnation but only the Word and Law of God 2. That the Office which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office which the Law alloweth is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently so by our Laws he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do and forbidden to Teach any thing as required of necessity to Salvation but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture yea it Commandeth him with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines that are contrary to Gods VVord Doth the VVord Authorise him to Administer the Sacraments So doth our Law Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach but also oversee and look to the Peoples Conversation Exhorting Admonishing Reproving Comforting them as well privately as publickly So doth our Law Lastly Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ our Law doth also command the same So that although many to whom the execution of these things appertain do grievously fail in the practice thereof yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister is the same in substance with that which the VVord layeth upon him Tell us not then That the same Name is given to our Office as to the Popish Sacrificers Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists And Shall the Holy Office and Calling which is so agreeable to the VVord be misliked because it is called a Priesthood considering that though it agree in Name yet it differeth in Nature and Suâ—stance as much from the Romish Priesthood as Light doth from Darkness IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church To which they Answer 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ which concern the Discipline of his Church and the outward calling of his Ministers is no such sin as can make either the Ministers or Governors of our Church Antichrist or our Church an Antichristian and False Church And Mr. H. adds That no one place of Scripture can be found wherein he is called an Antichrist or Antichristian who holding the Truth of Doctrine and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental as we do doth swerve either in Iudgment or Practice from that Rule which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture whose Doctrine is sound If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation through no other door than Christ How dare you that say you are Christ's refuse to be guided by them If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock How can you deny them to be True Churches 2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord and Administration of Sacraments as well as the Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor which say they by Law ought to be in all our Assemblies and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ which is most substantial do want the other and so exercise it not rightly that is to say not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed And farther they add That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table all such as are Vncatâ—chised and out of Charity or any otherwise publick offenders as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion and in that which is after Confirmation 3. That although it were granted That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign The Church of Corinth was a True Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they Condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline which we want be to the Beauty and Well-being or preservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a True Church may be without them
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
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
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
intended in Silencing of them But our Churches whereof we are Ministers are no private and secret Assemblies such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State but are publick professing their Worship and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his Countenance Authority and Protection and we are set over those Churches not only by a Calling of our People but also by the Authority of the Magistrate who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some If therefore after our publick calling to Minister to such a known and Publick Church not by the Church only but by the Magistrate also the Magistrate shall have matter against us whether just or unjust it skilleth not and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate or to oppose Sword to Sword And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly and against the will of the Church and should therein sin yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate neither doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister how great and deserving soever to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate by leaving her publick standing to follow his Ministery in private and in the dark refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy 4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath by Gods Word in such a case so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live when in some competent measure they may publickly with the grace and favor of the Magistrate enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another and except he have a calling to Minister in some Church he is to be content to live as a private member till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him and to call him again to his own Church labouring mean while privately upon particular occasions offered to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God those People that are deprived of his publick Labour And I take it to be the duty of the People in such a Case if they will approve themselves faithful Christians and good Subjects so to submit to the Ministery of another as that by Prayer and all other good dutiful and loyal means they may do their best endeavor to obtain him of whom against their will they have been deprived and still to affect and love him as their Pastor now if the People do thus then is that Minister called to be Silent not only by the Magistrate but by them also though with much grief To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw all that Mr. B. saith is That Bradshaw thought we should submit to a Silencing Law where our Ministery was unnecessary and so doth he If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes he would never have given such an Answer as this For Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity or no necessity of their Preaching but upon the allowance or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time than there is now when himself confesseth several years since That Thirty years ago there were many bare Reading not Preaching Ministers for one that there is now And what was there which the old Non-conformists more complained of than the want of a more Preaching Ministery This then could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason and Mr. Baxter upon second thoughts cannot be of that opinion I have yet one Argument more to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation Which is that where two Duties do meet a greater and a less whereof both cannot be done at the same time the lesser duty must yield unto the greater but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming teacheth and the practice thereof causeth to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine and a Sin in Practice The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose That Ministers deprived by Law are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law 's And to confirm this several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument and to give an account of the disparity of the case as to the Apostles times and ours For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground to which they Answer That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do because their Ministery was of far greater excellency and usefulness and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles than it could be with them For say they What one Minister of the Gospel is there that dare be so presumptuous as to say That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity and use for the Glory of God and good of his Church as was the Ministery of his Apostles The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles viz. the planting of the Church and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations was such as could not have been performed by any other but the Apostles alone but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity there is no such danger and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined though they Preach not the Gospel is Preached still and that soundly and fruitfully Did these Men think the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel did reach to their case Can Mr. B. imagine that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach although they were silenced by our Laws And now I hope I have proved that to be evidently True which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false But if after all this Mr. B. will persist in saying That he knew those who did otherwise all that I have to say to it is That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance both of the one and the other Party if they were such as he represents are not to be the Standard for all the rest for it seems he was not very happy in either PART
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
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
The Vnreasonableness of Separation OR An Impartial Account OF THE History Nature and Pleas OF THE Present Separation FROM THE Communion of the Church of ENGLAND To which Several late LETTERS are Annexed of Eminent Protestant Divines Abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the Way to Compose Them By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to HIS MAJESTY LONDON Printed by T. N. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul ' s Church-yard MDCLXXXI THE PREFACE IT is reported by Persons of unquestionable credit that after all the Service B. Jewel had done against the Papists upon his Preaching a Sermon at St. Paul's Cross in Defence of the Orders of this Church and of Obedience to them he was so Ungratefully and Spitefully used by the Dissenters of that Time that for his own Vindication he made a Solemn Protestation on his Death-bed That what he then said was neither to please some nor to displease others but to Promote Peace and Unity among Brethren I am far from the vanity of thinking any thing I have been able to do in the same Cause fit to be compared with the Excellent Labors of that Great Light and Ornament of this Church whose Memory is preserved to this day with due Veneration in all the Protestant Churches but the hard Usage I have met with upon the like occasion hath made such an Example more observable to me especially when I can make the same Protestation with the same sincerity as he did For however it hath been Maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that I was put upon that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise a fresh persecution against Dissenting Protestants I was so far from any thought tending that way that the only Motive I had to undertake it was my just Apprehension that the Destruction of the Church of England under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the most likely ways to bring it in And I have hitherto seen no cause and I believe I shall not to alter my opinion in this matter which was not rashly taken up but formed in my Mind from many years Observation of the Proceedings of that Restless Party I mean the Papists among us which hath always Aimed at the Ruine of this Church as one of the Most Probable Means if others failed to compass their Ends. As to their Secret and more Compendious ways of doing Mischief they lie too far out of our View till the Providence of God at the same time discovers and disappoints them but this was more open and visible and although it seemed the farther way about yet they promised themselves no small success by it Many Instruments and Engines they made use of in this design many ways and times they set about it and although they met with several disappointments yet they never gave it over but Would it not be very strange that when they can appear no longer in it others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry on the Work for them This seems to be a great Paradox to unthinking People who are carried away with meer Noise and Pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most Passion and with least Understanding against it whereas no persons do really give them greater advantages than these do For where they meet only with intemperate Railings and gross Misunderstandings of the State of the Controversies between them and us which commonly go together the more subtle Priests let such alone to spend their Rage and Fury and when the heat is over they will calmly endevour to let them see how grosly they have been deceived in some things and so will more easily make them believe they are as much deceived in all the rest And thus the East and West may meet at last and the most furious Antagonists may become some of the easiest Converts This I do really fear will be the case of many Thousands among us who now pass for most zealous Protestants if ever which God forbid that Religion should come to be Vppermost in England It is therefore of mighty consequence for preventing the Return of Popery that Men rightly understand what it is For when they are as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony as of real Idolatry and think they can Worship Images and Adore the Host on the same grounds that they may use the Sign of the Cross or Kneel at the Communion when they are brought to see their mistake in one case they will suspect themselves deceived in the other also For they who took that to be Popery which is not will be apt to think Popery it self not so bad as it was represented and so from want of right understanding the Differences between us may be easily carried from one Extreme to the other For when they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can Trace it so very near the Apostles times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves For it will be very hard to perswade any considering Men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally as it must do if Episcopal Government and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostacy Will it not seem strange to them that when some Human Polities have preserved their First Constitution so long without any considerable Alteration that the Government instituted by Christ and setled by his Apostles should so soon after be changed into another kind and that so easily so insensibly that all the Christian Churches believed they had still the very same Government which the Apostles left them Which is a matter so incredible that those who can believe such a part of Popery could prevail so soon in the Christian Church may be brought upon the like grounds to believe that many others did So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Churches Enemies bring upon the Cause of the Reformation And those who foregoe the Testimony of Antiquity as all the Opposers of the Church of England must do must unavoidably run into insuperable difficulties in dealing with the Papists which the Principles of our Church do lead us through For we can justly charge Popery as an unreasonable Innovation when we allow the undoubted Practices and Government of the Ancient Church for many Ages after Christ. But it is observed by Bishop Sanderson That those who reject the Usages of our Church as Popish and Antichristian when Assaulted by Papists will be apt to conclude Popery to be the old Religion which in the purest and Primitive Times was Professed in all Christian Churches throughout the World Whereas the sober English Protestant is able by the Grace of God with much
agreeably to their present practice although least for the honor of the Assembly who confess That they were transported with undue heats and animosities against their Brethren which deserve to be lamented and not to be imitated that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said nor to be concluded by their Determinations that it is to be hoped the Party is become wiser since This is plain dealing and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren and that in a matter wherein they happened to have the strongest reason of their side But hereby we see that those who justifie the present Separation have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists as to this point of Separation Sect. 17. It remains now that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles of their Predecessors as to private persons undertaking to reform the Discipline of the Church and setting up new Churches against the consent of the Magistrate in a Reformed Church and particularly as to the Preaching of their Ministers when Silenced by our Law 's This I am the more obliged to do because when I said That I was certain that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times Mr. B. is pleased to say That my Assertion is so rash and false in matters of notorious Fact that it weakeneth his Reverence of my Iudgment in matters of right I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact and if what I said be true and notoriously true I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism That Churches are to be set up and Discipline reformed without the consent of the Christian Magistrate Brown maketh many Arguments saith he to prove that Princes are not to be stayed for nor yet to have to do by Publick Power to establish Religion Which Opinion of his is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes and such horribâ— Injury to the Church contrary to the manifest Word of God that if there were nothing else it is enough to make him an odious and detestable Heretick untill he shew Repentance But to clear this matter he distinguishes 1. of Princes that are enemies to Christianity as they were in the time of the Apostles to what end saith he should they having Authority from Christ to establish Discipline sue unto the Courts of such Princes or attend their pleasure 2. Of such who profess Christianity but are Idolaters In this case he saith they are neither â—ound to forbear Preaching nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it 3. Of such Princes who own the true Doctrine of Christianity but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline In this case he determines That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform which he there proves and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary In Answer to this Barrow saith That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Commandments of God upon any restraint or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion if Princes had been to be stayed for or their restraint been a sufficient let and adds That they only according to Gods Commandment refrained from their Idolatry and other Publick Evils and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner to Worship the Lord our God and to joyn our selves together in the Faith unto mutual Duties and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church and for the Church to erect the same To the Instance of the Apostles Giffard had Answered That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ to set up his Kingdom but ye have no Commission from God it is the Devil that hath set you forward And will ye in such vile and wretched manner pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches Barrow replies If the Commandment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work though all the Princes of the World resisted then must the Commandment of the same God be of the same effect to all other Instruments whom it pleaseth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also though all the Princes in the World should withstand and forbid the same By this we see this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with whom they called the forward Preachers these are two 1. That the planting or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants except they have Authority from Earthly Princes which Doctrine saith he is against the Kingly Power of Christ and three whole Lines of Scripture which he there puts together 2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching and to forsake his Flock at the commandment of a Lord Bishop Which Doctrine he saith is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse But lest it should be supposed that these two were among those which Iacob saith he falsly laid to their charge we find both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-conformists who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists For say they As to the Peoples power of Reforming First We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scripture for them that are private Members of any Church to erect the Discipline no not though the Magistrate and Ministers who should deal in this work were altogether profane and ungodly Secondly We esteem our Prince to be a most Lawful and Christian Magistrate and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ and therefore we are justly afraid that by enterprising a publick Reformation not only without but contrary to the direction and liking of them who by God's word ought to have if not the onely yet the principal hand in that work we should highly offend God Thirdly That for the want of Publick Reformation the Magistrate is every where blamed and no where the Church for ought we can find Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry but never for that they plucked it not down when their Princes had set it up neither can we find whether ever the Church under a
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
against the Teachers of the Circumcision Vers 2. Beware of Dogs beware of Evil Workers beware of the Concision But speaking so reproachfully of them he shews in the next words that every thing that was excellent in the design of the Law was accomplished in the Gospel and so he proceeds to declare how justly he was brought to a disesteem of the greatest priviledges of the Law in comparison with the things revealed by the Gospel which shews that the Apostle had still an eye to these False Teachers who were very busie in disturbing the Peace of the Churches and drawing Disciples after them pleading the necessity of observing the Law and dividing the Christians into different Communions on that account as appears by their proceedings at Antioch where they did separate themselves from the Gentile Christians and St. Peter for a time complyed with them If such as these had not been busie at Philippi where it appears that Iews inhabited What need St. Paul give so much caution against them What need all this dispute concerning the Priviledges of the Law If it be allowed that they were there carrying on the same designs which they did in other Churches then it follows he had great reason to perswade them to Vnity so earnestly as he doth Philip. 2. 1 2. and to give so much caution against them and to represent the great excellencies of the Gospel above the Law which being done the Apostle after his usual method makes a digression concerning himself viz. How far short he thought himself of what he aimed at and yet with what earnestness he pressed forward toward Christian perfection making no longer any account of legal priviledges Which I take to be his meaning when he saith Forgetting the things which are behind I press forward c. So St. Hierome understands it Legis obliviscens ad perfecta Evangelii praecepta me teneo Forgetting the Law I keep to the Precepts of the Gospel This being understood the Apostles sence naturally follows according to his former design Let us therefore as many as are arrived to this height of Christianity so the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is used 1 Cor. 14. 20. Ephes. 4. 13. Coloss. 4. 12. Heb. 5. 14. agree in pursuing our main end But then comes the case of those who were not so fully satisfied in this matter of the Law there being many and plausible Arguments on their side well saith the Apostle if they are doubtful I advise them however not to hearken to these false Teachers for they make nothing but Faction and Divisions among you wait patiently upon God which is the best means for your satisfaction If any be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you i. e. saith Beza in his Paraphrase If any yet doubt of the laying aside of the Law let them make no disturbance in the Church about it And so Erasmus saith It ought to be understood of the Iudaizing Christians who did not yet discern that the Ceremonial Law was to be abolished however saith he they ought not to break the Peace of the Church for it But What sence can Dr. O. here put upon the being otherwise minded Otherwise than what As many as be perfect be thus minded to pursue your main end but if any be otherwise minded Did any think they ought not to mind chiefly their great end that is incredible Therefore the Apostle must be understood of somewhat about which there were then very different apprehensions and that it is certain there were about the Law among the Christians then The Apostle therefore doth not speak of any kind of different apprehensions Christians might fall into but of such as were at that time among them and so one Copy reads it 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If hitherto ye have been otherwise minded they had no difference concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things before them viz. the happiness of the Gospel but they had concerning the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the things behind viz. the force and obligation of the Law And since this difference did not rest barely in opinion but was carried on so far as to break the Peace of the Church about it it appears to have been no bare difference of Opinions but such as related to the Peace and Communion of Christians Secondly Whether the Rule which the Apostle layes down be only a Rule of mutual forbearance Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things The sence according to Dr. O. is this That those who are agreed in the stubstantials of Religion should go on and do their duty without regarding lesser differences Which is a sence very uncertain and doth not reach to the differences then among them It is very uncertain because it sets no bounds to differences and supposes the continuance of such differences among them which he designed to prevent by perswading them so often in this Epistle to be of one mind of one soul as well as to mind the same things Besides the difference then on foot was none of the smaller differences of opinions but that about which they differ'd was urged on one side as necessary to Salvation by the false Apostles and opposed on the other as pernicious and destructive to it One of my Answerers saith That the Iudaizing Christians were leaven'd with such a corrupt Opinion as was by no means to be born with which would have madè Christ and his Death in vain And that the Apostle sets himself against it might and main shewing the dreadful consequences of it And is it probable the Apostle should prescribe a Rule of mutual forbearance in such a case as this especially when in the same Chapter he gives so great a caution against them with so much unusual sharpness of expression Beware of Dogs beware of Evil Workers beware of the Concision Doth this look like a Precept of mutual forbearance as to the differences then among them these we know there were let Dr. O name any other smaller differences of Opinion which might be an occasion of the Apostles giving such a Rule of mutual forbearance But now if we suppose the Apostle to speak to the difference about the Law about which the Churches were then divided the sence is plain easie and pertinent For so either 1. It takes in those who hitherto differ'd about the Law and then the sence is although you are not come up to so great satisfaction as others have yet go as far as you can with the Body of Christians you live with keep within one Rule break not the bounds of Peace and Vnity which Christ hath set you run not with the false Teachers into Separating dividing courses 2. It is directed to those who have got the start of others and then it contains the obligation that lies upon them especially so have a mighty regard to the Peac◠and Vnity of Christians not to break the
Commonâ—ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments nor to Separate from others as meaner and lower Christians because they are not come up to that perfection which you have attained to And so either way it contains an excellent Rule and of admirable use to the Christian Church not only at that time but in all Ages of the World viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things should go as far as they can towards preserving Peace and Communion among Christians and not peevishly separate and divide the Church because they cannot in all things think as others do nor others on the account of greater sanctity and perfection despise the inferior sort of Christians and forsake their Communion but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace and the Vnity of the Church Thirdly How far this Rule hath an influence on our case 1. It follows from hence that as far as Communion is lawful it is a duty since as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule And so much Dr. O. doth not deny when he saith Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion or in the Principles of Faith and Obedience should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ Then as far as they agree they are bound to joyn together whether it be as to Opinion or Communion Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion as far as that is judged to be lawful 2. That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others though of lower attainments and to keep within the same Rule which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judged necessary to hold the Members of a Christian Society together But saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it This is the Apostles Rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down quietly and wait for farther instruction and not to break the Peace of the Church upon present dissatisfaction nor to gather new Churches out of others upon supposition of higher attainments If the Rule reach our Case saith he again it must be such as requires things to be observed as were never divinely appointed as National Churches Ceremonies and Modes of Worship And so this Rule doth in order to Peace require the observation of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority provided they be not unlawful in themselves nor repugnant to the World of God But the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies Feasts Fasts Liturgies c. What then It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace And without this no Vnity or Order can be preserved in Churches The Apostles saith he gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule viz. of mutual forbearance Rome 14. And herein the Apostle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence but as a Teacher divinely inspired That he was Divinely inspired I do not question but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances which resolution may not always bind when the circumstances are changed For then the meaning of the Apostle must be that whatever differences happen among Christians there must be no determination either way But the direct contrary to this we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem upon the difference that happened in the Christian Churches And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way yet the Apostles made a determination in the case contrary to their Judgment Which shews that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alledged both wayes is no standing Rule to the Christian Church but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Welfare of that Church which they are bound to preserve And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers whereas it is most evident that the true Apostles made this peremptory Decree in a matter of great consequence and against the pretence of Conscience on the other side But saith Dr. O. further The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty provided they did not impose on others and the Dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile Churches did viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed upon them I Answer 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty out of respect to the Law of Moses and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church which might have been extremely hazarded if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters For 1. They were none of their lawful Governors but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them 2. They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation and not as meerly indifferent things And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians as to the Impositions of the false Apostles Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text. The Author of the Letter saith 1. That I ought to have proved that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures and 2. That other Church-Guides had the same Power as the Apostles had But what need all this If it appear 1. That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scriptures as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule for omitting some Divine Rules or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government 2. That it is a standing Rule of Scripture that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church And this I have shewed was the Apostles design in the words of this Text. Sect. 20. Others pretend that the Apostle means no more by these words but that Christians must live up to their knowledge and mind that one thing This is a very new Exposition and the Author of it intends
Separation from a Church wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship for if they be not such Separation must be a formal Schism because such persons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church but set up other Churches of their own Now the way I shall take to shew the insufficiency of these Causes of Separation shall be by shewing the great Absurdities that follow upon the allowance of them These Five especially I shall insist upon 1. That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation 2. That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches 3. That it justifies the antient Schism's which have been always condemned by the Christian Church 4. That it makes Separation endless 5. That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church Sect. 22. 1. The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation Which I shall make appear not from the Testimonies of our own Writers who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church but from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France who can be the least suspected of partiality to our Church I begin with Calvin against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken 1. In the General He assigns two marks of the Visible Church the Word of God truly Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institution 2. He saith Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to humane conveniencies 3 That although those stand as Members of particular Churches who may not be thought worthy of that Society till they are duly cast out yet the Churches themselves having these Marks do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches and ought to be so esteemed 4. Men ought not to Separate from or break the Vnity of such Churches And he hath this notable saying upon it God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments And a little after he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ a destruction of his Truth a mighty provocation of his Anger a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks 5. That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church yet as long as it retains those Marks Separation from it is not justifiable nay although some of those faults be about Preaching the Word and Administration of Sacraments for saith he all truths are not of equal moment but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept up Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss continuing in the Communion of the Church and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it And he at large proves what great allowance is to be made as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches and he saith Mens Moroseness in this Matter although it seems to flow from zeal yet it much rather comes from Spiritual Pride and a false opinion of their own holiness above others Although saith he there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah yet they never set up new Churches nor erected other Altars whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices but whatever the People were as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them they lifted up pure hands to God although in such an impure Society The same he proves as to Christ and his Apostles From whence he concludes That Separation from such Churches where the true Word of God and Sacraments are is an inexcusable fault But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it and the Worship of God so corrupted that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness And the truth of the Gospel being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communion of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions especially when they Anathematize those who will not comply with them But doth he mean any indifferent Rites or Ceremonies where the Doctrine is sound No but False Doctrine and Idolatrous Worship as he frequently declares And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed and some Corruptions remaining in it must overthrow the fundamental grounds of the Reformation as they are explained by Calvin himself Sect. 23. Among their later Writers no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology And the Grounds he goes upon are these 1. That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those who go about to destroy and ruin Christianity 2. If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith offends our Consciences and overthrows the service which we believe due to God if the differences have been small and such as we might safely have yielded unto then he will grant that their Separation was rash and unjust and they guilty of the Schism 3. He proves that they had weighty reasons for their Separation which are these 1. Imposing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith and yet not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation but such as are pernicious and destructive to Salvation for which he instanceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Presence in the Sacrament which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments nor requires the adoring it it neither divides nor mutilates it nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin all which follows from the Popish Doctrine From whence he concludes That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors is an unjust Separation 2. Requiring such Worship as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity which saith he proves the necessity of our Separation and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host which the Church of Rome strictly requiring and the Protestants believing it to be a meer Creature they cannot give it without Idolatry from whence he concludes our Separation to be â—ust because it was necessary Besides this he gives instances in the
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
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
he hopes it will not be made a Rule that Communion may not be withheld so the sense must be although not be left out or withdrawn from any Church in any thing so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed But as long as he grants that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them Not but that I think there may be a separation without sin from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church but then I say the reason of such separation is some heinous Errour in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some tyranny over the Consciences of men which may not be such as to destroy true Baptism and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter 2. He answers That they do not say that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ hath instituted that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them it is the duty of them who doe so to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation To which I reply that This is either not to the business or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency For wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our Church was required of them But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches And then I intreat him to tell me what difference there is between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches Is not this the primary reason of Separation because Christ hath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church which we are bound to observe and which are not observed in Parochial Churches Indeed the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution but the primary ground is that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed Let us then 1. suppose that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation so qualified and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church and choose their Officers who are to Teach and Admonish and Administer Sacraments and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation And let us 2. suppose such a Church not yet gathered but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes 3. Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church 4. Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members neither the aëreal sign of the Cross nor kneeling at the Communion c. I desire then to know whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church according to Christ's Institution Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules and the Institution of Christ or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church which is the true Cause of their separation but such Reasons as are common to all Churches that are not formed just after their own model If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches those must be observed and separation made in order to it and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way But this was a necessary piece of art at this time to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party and to make them believe if they can be so forgetfull that they do not own separation from their Churches but onely from ours the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days that they must be forgetfull indeed who do not remember it Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments Hath Dr. O. yielded that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon they would give over separation Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration would they not have continued their Separation Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation when it is notoriously otherwise and they did separate and form their Churches upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches This is more artificial than ingenuous Sect. 2. As to the Second Dr. O. answers that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact and so necessary from the nature of the thing that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations that many wise men wholly unconcerned in our Controversies do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute And for this two Testimonies are alleged of Iustice Hobart and Father Paul but neither of them speaks to the point All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles and after to other Pastours Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin it signifies so very little to the purpose or rather quite overthrows his Hypothesis as appears by these two Arguments 1. Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles which he calls voluntary Congregations 2. Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease were no particular Congregations in one City but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks were such for he saith they first
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
whatsoever you shall bind c. From whence saith he by a constant succession of times such a course hath been always observed in the Church that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct Since this saith he is a Divine Institution I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me concerning the lapsed since the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the standing People In his Epistle to Antonianus he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world and in that to Cornelius that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus and to Pupianus where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop and to Stephanus that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course Let the Reader now judge whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church But we have this advantage from this appeal that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgment any one may see when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church but what was generally observed over the Christian world And now let Dr. O. give an account how a change so great so sudden so universal should happen in the Christian world in the Government of the Church that when Christ had placed the Power in the People the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs without any controul from the People which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear that the Power was at first lodged in them and not in the People For as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History and that over all the world and in a way of ambition in such humbling times without all manner of opposition for 300 years together and immediately after the Apostles had it been usurpation or innovation When and where is innovation without opposition Would not Elders so many seeing and knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed Aërius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable The force of which reasoning will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease Sect. 5. 2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture The matter of fact is that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture yet saith he there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way The thing I desired was that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations they would prove that they did make new and distinct Churches and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province Who ever denied or disputed that On the contrary the proof of this is a great advantage to our Cause for since where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province it speaks of them as of different Churches but when it mentions the Christians of one City it calls them the Church of that City as the Church of Ierusalem the Church of Ephesus but the Churches of Iudea Galilee and Samaria what can be more evident than that the Christians of one City though never so numerous made but one Church If one observe the language of the New Testament one may find this observation not once to fail that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number they are the Churches of a Province as the Churches of Iudea the Churches of Asia the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of it is still câ—lled the Church of that City as the Church at Antioch the Church at Corinth and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together they are the 7 Churches but when spoken to single it is the Church of Ephesus the Church of Smyrna c. Which being spoken without any discrimination as to the difference of these places in greatness and capacity or the number of Believers in them doth evidently discover that what number soever they were they were all but the Church of that City For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus Sardis Pergamus and Laodicea which were great and populous Cities than in Thyatira and Philadelphia which were much less especially considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephesâ—s and the mighty success which he had in preaching there which will amount to no great matter if in three years time he converted no more than made up one single Congregation And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power and prevalency of the Gospel I cannot but wonder what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province as Galatia and Macedonia he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations who denies that but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City though never so great made but one Church and uncontroulable evidence from Antiquity that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City All that he saith further to this matter is that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves because in every one of them Elders were ordained Act.
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
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
cited out of his History but not one that comes near any proof of this matter The 1. proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia where there were no Christians Therefore in Theodoret's time there was no Diocesan Episcopacy The 2. shews that in a small City of Thebais Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished and there were but a few Christians yet there was a Bishop Who ever denied this where there was a prospect of converting more as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased new Bishops were made which this is very far from The 3. proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force without any Synod of Bishops or Choice of the Clergy or Request of the People I suppose by this time Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church which I am sure he had not from Theodoret nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria The 4. is intended to prove that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly which met onely in one place at once But it is very unhappy that Theodoret shews just the contrary in that place for he saith that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his very words to whom he saith Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church Which Mr. B. thus translates Valens found the Orthodox even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them of which he dispossessed them I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret and I dare say he will see cause to admire it But if any one can imagin that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation for my part I must give him over as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to but of what it was in its settled state The 5. is from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers I am ashamed to reade much more to confute such arguments as these For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation The 6. proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism It is true Theodoret saith Doliche was a little City and so he tells us Cyrus was no great one but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese which for any thing we see in Theodoret might be as large as we have evidently proved from him the Diocese of Cyrrhus was Let the Reader now judge whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches viz. for personal Communion and men make another is not this a violation of Christ's Command and setting up Man against God I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation and therefore the extending it to more can be no violation of Christ's Command or setting up a new species of Churches as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meekness towards his Adversaries charges me for speaking against this principle of his with pleading for presumption profanation usurpation uncharitableness schism what not What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness Why I set down a saying of his as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed That is not to the business for that which I quoted it for was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mens devising and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable and that the imposing it as Divine is an intolerable usurpation and all this at the same time when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord My business is now to shew Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this I need no more than one of Mr. B. ' s own Cautions in his Premonition viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops as he calls them over Parochial Bishops as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace There are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter ' s Arguments to prove that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office was settled for all following Ages 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form but we never reade of any abolition discharge or cessation of the Institution 〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of mutability as settling one form of Government for one Age onely and no longer 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastours Sacraments c. and to say they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with to the end of the world Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave Successours in the care and Government of Churches have a great deal of weight in them and overballance the difficulties on the other side As upon this occasion I think fit to declare From whence I argue thus That which is onely a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
and confusion will follow if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith without being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority Which is all one as to suppose that every Family may govern it self because a Kingdom is made up of Families without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom No saith Dr. O. the case is not the same For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations But God by the Light and Law of Nature by the ends and use of the Creation of man by express Revelation in his Word hath by his own Authority appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government So say I that God by the Light and Law of Reason by the ends and use of a Christian Society by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations For if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment so in the case of Churches since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant settle and govern Churches and set up Rulers in them but still under their Authority can any thing be plainer than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves But as in the former case if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions and to have placed them in convenient Seats and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint and as they found themselves decaying should nominate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours Without breaking in pieces into so many Families every Master governing his family by himself which would certainly ruin and destroy them all because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves So it is again in the case of Churches The Apostles planted them and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them still reserving the main care of Government to themselves but giving excellent Rules of Charity Peace Obedience and Submission to Governours and as they withdrew from particular Churches within such a precinct as Crete was they appointed some whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them and therefore in this case here is no more independency in particular Congregations than in the other as to private Families which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians and their mutual preservation and defence as in the former case In which we believe the civil Government to be from God although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles when the matter of fact is attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses Lastly as in the former case several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security and become one Kingdom so in the latter case several Bishops with the Churches under them might for promoting the common ends of Christianity and the Peace and establishment of their Churches joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church which being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping upon the Rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed as an universal Pastour must doe will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is Which I therefore mention that any one may see that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction for the Nature of the thing it self and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches is sufficient for it And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches viz. What the nature of a Christian Society and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require For whatever tends to the support of Religion to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions from the very nature of the thing and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it It being then taken for granted among all Christians 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it We may reasonably infer that whatever tends to promote this Vnion and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it is within the design of the first Institution although it be not contained in express words Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith Government and Worship be the more likely way to promote Religion to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason as to these ends In the Congregational way there may be as many Religions as Churches I do not say there are but we are arguing now upon what may be from the nature of the thing Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians another of Papists another of Arians another of Quakers another of Anabaptists c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind But if they be it is meer chance and good hap there being no obligation upon them to have any more
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
the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience 2. If no error will excuse from sin why is the Question afterwards put by me What error will excuse I answer 1. it is an exercise of patience to be troubled with a cavilling adversary 2. Do not I say as plainly as words can express it that a wilful error doth not excuse from sin And the question afterwards put concerns the same thing and the Answer I give to it is if the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse but if it be wilful it doth not Is this mans conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute 3. He saith I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation What Sophisters arguments are these As though we did not commonly speak of the thing as it is and not as the Person apprehends it S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution although he did not think it so when he did it The Iews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles which was wilful murder and yet they were men in their wits The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing it self for I was not so foolish to put the case concerning men who thought themselves bound to commit a sin knowing it to be a sin 2. He much questions whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church it is sufficient to my purpose And did not the false Apostles do so and have not others followed their examples And thus after other trifling Cavils to the same purpose after his manner he yields all that I say and saith It is freely granted by all the world that wilful Error doth not excuse from sin And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common doctrine of all Casuists only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand Why so was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule And was it not very pertinent to this to shew how far an erroneous conscience may or may not excuse from sin But Mr. A. saith it should have been about the Power of Conscience concerning an established Rule of mans making and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make Is not this indeed to the purpose First to suppose an unlawful rule imposed and then to enquire what conscience is to do about it My business was to shew that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfie themselves with this that they followed their consciences because their consciences might err and if that Error happened to be wilful being contracted for want of due care what they did might not only be sinful in it self but imputed to them as sins Which all men who pretended any regard to conscience ought to have an eye to for why do they pretend conscience but to â—void sin And if under a wilful error of 〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins as the Ieâ—â— and S. Paul were then men ought not to satisfie theâ—selves barely with this pretence that they do as 〈…〉 direct them This was the plain 〈◊〉 of that â—art of my Sermon and I leave any 〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent But he saith 〈…〉 if they be such are wholl◠〈…〉 invincible Ignorance If 〈…〉 better for them I hope they have 〈…〉 in their own breasts for it than what appears in some of their late Books for neither a peevish angry scornful provoking way of writing about these matters nor a light scurrilous cavilling Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse are any great signs of such an impartial endeavour after satisfaction as Mr. A. boasts of I cannot tell how much they have read the Scriptures and studied this Controversie nor how earnestly they have pray'd for direction but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates which give me no great satisfaction in this matter But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge being very willing to hope and believe the best To return to the Author of the Letter The main force of what he saith lies in this that those who cannot conquer their scruples as to communion with our Church must either return to the State of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers This is new doctrine and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church although there were some things they scrupled and could not conquer those scruples And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us and much more living under some of our Ministers I never heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately and it hath been considered already And it is a very hard case with a Church if People must fly into Separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church I would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others their Separation be lawful If it be it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent for this Principle overthrows them all I will instance particularly in the last as most favourable to such kind of Liberty And I need not suppose a case since such hath already happened several times in New England R. Williams is one remarkable Instance who scrupled many things in their Churches and therefore could joyn no longer with them and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them and the People who scrupled as well as he chose him for their Pastor What is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present separation But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause so far from it that R. Williams published grievous complaints to the world of the persecution he underwent for it Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton an eminent Minister of New England viz. of a Church that
the Infidels Children in the world And his next is whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers and Gods general promise I answer 1. The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism and so whatever right the Parents have that is challenged when the Child is brought to be baptized 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's and hath so continued ever since but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it 3. In their own capacity when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith in the charge given to them after Baptism So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another they all succeeding each other there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents 2 If the Parents be supposed to have no right yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children Not as though their Sponsion gave the right but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance To make this clear we must consider that administration of Baptism is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys which Christ first gave to the Apostles and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church By vertue of this Power they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects The Church of Christ as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity hath alwayes allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church but lest the Church should fail of its end and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty it required Sponsors for them who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle ad Bonifacium where he saith 1. That the Childs benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism not for any spiritual benefit but for corporal health notwithstanding this saith S. Augustine if the due form of Baptism be observed the spiritual effect of it is obtained 2. That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants For saith he the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby not so much by those in whose arms they are carried for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms as by the whole Society of the Faithful Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit quia tota omnes tota singulos parit so that it is by the Churches right that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it 3. That there is no necessity that the Parents themselves offer their Children For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism as to the remission of Original Guilt or the account of their Parents offering them For many are offered to Baptism by strangers and slaves sometimes by their Masters And when Parents are dead Children are offered by such as take pity upon them and sometimes Children exposed by Parents and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins which neither have Children nor intend to have any 4. That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism Not as though the Child did really believe yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them do carry the name of the things represented as saith he the Sacrament of Christs body after a certain manner is called his Body and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood so the Sacrament of faith is called faith i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors which cannot be performed by the Children Thence he saith ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works and in another place he declares that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil and turn to God and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins 3. Those who think themselves bound to baptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptizing Children and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered For 1. They are not well agreed what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient or a justifying faith be necessary If saving faith be necessary whether the outward profession of it be sufficient Whether that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind or that only which is really so Whether profession be required for it self or as a discovery of something further Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient or real serioâ—sness be required What we must judge real seriousness in profession as distinct from inward sincerity What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary And whether besides all these actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary And if it be whether the Children of confederated Parents
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