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
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
then there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was concerning which these things may be observed 1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessours in Prison which he would have them to doe by turns every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage he gives this reason of it that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men it being now impaired by the fall of some during the persecution In the case of Philumanus Fortunatus and Favorinus he declares he would give no judgment cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint when many of his Clergy were absent And in another Epistle he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage and then he mentions Britius Rogatianus and Numidicus as the chief Presbyters remaining with them besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City And in Constantinople of old saith Iustinian in his Novels were 60 Presbyters for in one he saith The custom was to determin the number and in another that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople Let any one now consider whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations and at Carthage we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians that in the time of Persecution although very many stood firm yet the number of the lapsed was so great that Saint Cyprian saith Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation 2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command nor their own Place nor the future Iudgment of God nor the Bishop who was set over them and had done that which was never done in foregoing times to challenge those things to themselves with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy Wherein he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle saying that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion he complains of these Presbyters that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui Cathedrae reservare reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place and therefore charges that nothing further be done in this matter till his return when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen Lucian returns him answer that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and upon such Discipline as he should impose they were to be received to Communion So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessours they return him answer that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop as an argument of their great modesty and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them and they declare their resolution to doe nothing in this matter till they had a new Bishop By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People to appoint and ordain their own Officers Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers the same he doth soon after concerning Celerinus and Numidicus When he could not go among them himself by reason of the persecution he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters to visit in his name and to take care of the poor and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy Who give an account in the next Epistle that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation 3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People but from the Institution of Christ. So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter Thou art Peter c. And
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter And here the main Controversie lies between us and the Congregational Churches Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter then it follows as much from the nature of the thing that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace And I cannot yet see by all that hath been said how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism how great and intolerable soever it be thought As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila and Nymphas and Philemon I say that this is to be understood not of a Church meeting in their Houses but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say most of our Divines are of that Opinion and therefore the Argument holds against them And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before what obligation of Conscience can be upon any when they may serve God in their Families in opposition to Laws to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them For 1. he grants that a Church may be in a Family although a Family as such be not a Church Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church for a Church he saith may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Family Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion especially when the addition of four more may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church 2. All that he saith is that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families And what then the Question is not now whether they be lawfull but whether they be necessary for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law but where is that Command Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches as his great Rule in these cases But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families All that he saith further as to this matter is that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance which in this case amounts to separation But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land and much more before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them All men no doubt that ever broke Laws if this Plea would be admitted would transfer the blame upon those that made them And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull In my Sermon as it is printed I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter That to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted 1. He saith Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority and imposed in such a manner that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies and consequently affords a better plea for Separation But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning I will set down his own Cautions 1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop if he hath Curates under him This he calls Parochial Episcopacy 2. Nor whether these should have Archbishops over them as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office 3. Nor whether Partriarchs Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull as Officers of the King exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit 4. Nor if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them You will ask then where lies this horrible imposition and intolerable usurpation It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making which according to Mr. B. requires two things 1. Local and presential Communion as he calls it i.e. That it consists onely of so many as can well meet together for Church Society 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours which being taken away they are onely Curates and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church I shall undertake these three things 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new
species of Churches without God's Authority 3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches 1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church This I begin with because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others for in Saint Cyprian 's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world and that the Bishops there were the most godly faithfull peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times And of the following times he thus speaks Most of the African Councils saith he were the best in all the world Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils no Bishops being faithfuller than they Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised I shall lay down these two Observations Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them That there was to be but one Bishop in a City though the City were never so large or the Christians never so many This one Observation made good quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis For upon his principles where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence as he speaks there either they must alter the instituted species of Government or they must have more Bishops than one in a City For he saith the Church must be no bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach and have Conversation with But that this was not so understood in the African Churches appears by their strict observance of this Rule of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it will appear by this one Instance That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City and that was the Schism of the Donatists upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome had it not been fair to have divided them or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share But instead of this how doth Saint Cyprian even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian as Saint Augustin calls him aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City where there was one chosen before His words are so considerable to our purpose that I shall set them down Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already who ought to be alone he is not another Bishop but none at all Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can What! in such a City of Christians as Rome then was where were 46 Presbyters to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times and I am apt to think knew as well the Constitution of Churches then thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius and there tells him how far they had proceeded and what mischief this would be to the Church since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms After the election of Cornelius some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party and were received back again at a solemn Assembly where they confessed their fault and declared That they were not ignorant that as there was but one God and one Christ and one Holy Ghost so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius who would have it understood of one Pope but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church there ought to be but one Bishop in a City After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was that was chosen in his place And the necessity of this Vnity he insists on elsewhere and saith Our Saviour so appointed it unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy saying all the Apostles were equal and a little after Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that these holy men these Martyrs and Confessors men that were indeed dying daily and that for Christ too were all agreed that a Bishop there must be and that but one in a City though never so large and full of Christians Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus with this Proviso that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop and the other to have another People provided for him For which Saint Augustin commends him as an excellent man a true Son of Peace and Father of Christian People By which we see the best the wisest the most moderate Persons of that time never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Rule on both sides was but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese and if there had been any new made to increase
their number as it was objected on both sides if it were proved they were not to be allowed for generally then every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties but in some places they had but one where the People were of one mind and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa both Parties striving to increase their Numbers Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places Carthage was a very large City and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time as I have already shewed And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major Restituta in which the Bishops always sate as Victor Vitensis saith there were several other considerable Churches in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage as the Basilica Fausti the Basilica Leontiana the Basilica Celerinae mentioned by Victor likewise who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum The Basilica Novarum The Basilica Petri. The Basilica Pauli And I do not question there were many others which I have not observed for Victor saith that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop maximam turbam Clericorum a very great multitude of Clergy all which he immediately banished And without the City there were two great Churches saith Victor one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom and the other where his body was buried at a place called Mappalia In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage taking in those who were trained up to it And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion as he calls it in one Church and at one Altar Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop and so setting up one Altar against another was setting up one Bishop against another as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate and so there were as many Altars as Churches So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist that in the City where he was Bishop the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence that not onely the Oblations were made there and the Communion received but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin which I have mentioned elsewhere but from Optatus who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers for saith he illà c ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove In the African Code there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside which evidently proves that there were not onely more places but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks as they often did the African Council decrees that after the decease of such a Bishop if the People had no mind to have another in his room they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop Which shews that they thought the Dioceses might be so large as to hold the People that were under two Bishops And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops In one it was determined that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them without limitation of distance after that that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before but if the Donatist Bishop were converted then the Diocese was to be divided between them If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese he that did take the pains in it was to have those places laid to his Diocese unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop that he was not to blame Let Mr. Baxter now judge whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes as he confidently affirms Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government and he tells this particular story of it that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there the man did accordingly and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman President to complain of their insolence and to crave his assistance which he saith he did lest he should be blamed for his negligence who was the Bishop of that Diocese And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena and he saith he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will to be better instructed as being under his care but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away himself upon which he writes a long Epistle to him In another Epistle he gives an account that there was a place called Fussala which with the Country about it belonged to the Diocese of Hippo where there was abundance of People but almost all Donatists but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them those places were all reduced but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo he took care to have a Bishop placed among them but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop he was fain to resume it as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala which he mentions afterwards However it appears that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint
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
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 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
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
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
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
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.
and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him And it is no hard matter to guess what answer Saint Augustin would have given him But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches Quidam de Episcopis in Provinciâ nostrâ saith Saint Cyprian and yet he speaks of his Predecessours times which shews the very ancient extent of that Province In provinciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates saith he again which shews that more Cities than Carthage were under his care Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra in his Epistle to Cornelius In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration Victor mentions one Crescens who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onely in these parts of Africa let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points but had some for the right Constitution of Churches and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him It is observed by Epiphanius that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches especially those in Maraeotis of which Athanasius himself gives the best account Maraeotis saith he is a Region belonging to Alexandria which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself whence we observe 1. That here were true Parochial Churches for so Athanasius calls them Churches and not bare Oratories 2. That these had Presbyters fixed among them who performed divine Offices there 3. That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belonged to him 4. That these were at that distance that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy So in Alexandria it self there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them as Epiphanius several times observes and it would be a very strange thing indeed if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop But Mr. Baxter's great argument is from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity whence he concludes that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly Whereas all that Athanasius saith amounts to no more than this that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches the People grew impatient and so at last he yielded to them But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present and that this Church would hold them all If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion and finding themselves too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London Athanasius saith not a word more than that it was Easter and there appeared a great number of People such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City Doth he say or intimate that all the Christians of the City were present that none of them went to the lesser Churches or were absent though the Croud was so great Doth he not say the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them But the argument is of greater force in this respect that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church But to serve this hypothesis Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great City and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exceeding great City so great that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past mens comprehension and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great persecution when he was banished he kept up the Assemblies in the City and at Cephro he had a large Church partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him and partly from other places and when he was removed thence to Colluthion which was nearer the City such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him that they were forced to have distinct Congregations so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie and so Athanasius useth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Christians meeting in several Congregations If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before under the sharpest persecution is it possible to imagin in so great a City after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation There is no hopes of convincing men that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities I shall onely add one Instance more from Antiquity which is plain enough of it self to shew the
great extent of Diocesan Power then and that is of Theodoret a great and learned Bishop and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches for so many Parishes saith he are in my Diocese which he had then enjoyed twenty six years Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret And yet these Parishes did not change their species for he saith they were Churches still This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle But without any considerable ground unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis For what if Theodoret ' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy Is that a sufficient argument to reject them unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles with the History of those times or with his other Writings Which are the Rules Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death And it is supposed that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him which was the occasion of writing it his other Epistles are so full of it that Mr. B. never read the rest if he calls this into question upon that account That Hypatius Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost which Nicephorus saw doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit But he is much mistaken if he thinks there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples which he compared with the Vatican and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret ' s name Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie to be spurious What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret ' s Works I do not well understand unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them But there are two things he objects which seem more material 1. That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time 2. That he proves from other places in Theodoret that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches 1. As to the first certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove that one such City as Cyrus then was had 800 Churches in it But by Cyrus Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus as will afterwards appear If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy Strabo and Pliny then there would not appear the least improbability in it since many considerable Cities were within it as Beroea now Aleppo and Hierapolis and extended as far as Euphrates Zeugma being comprehended under it The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others in that Province there was a Metropolitan who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus or Cyrrhus But notwithstanding I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province but of his own peculiar Diocese for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City which was under Theodoret's care within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order as he complains in several Epistles and there it is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regio Cyrrhestica and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius where he saith it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth And he saith in another Epistle that Christianity was then so much spread among them that not onely the Cities but the Villages the Fields and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown In his Epistle to Nomus he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion another with the Eunomian another with the Arian Heresie which were all converted by his care and in another place he saith he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion ' s Doctrine in his Diocese and the great pains he took to root it out and the success he had therein And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives as Tillima Targala Nimuza Teleda Telanissus which are sufficient to shew that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches his Diocese being forty miles in length and as many in breadth So that Mr. B. must reject not onley that Epistle to Leo but the rest too and his other Works if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy which is too hard a task to be undertaken without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought 2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses which all men know to have been very different but about the extent of Episcopal Power whether it were limited to one Parochial Church or was extended over many And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this I extreamly failed of my expectation as to the other places of Theodoret which he promised to produce For I find five or six places
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
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
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
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
had the judgment of a whole Council of African Bishops for their deserting him 4. For a notorious matter of fact viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession 5. All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this doth amount to no more than that the People were most concerned to give Testimony as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People to hear what they had to object against them and said it was a hard case when the Christians and Iews did so about their Priests the same should not be done about Governours of Provinces who had mens lives and fortunes in their hands But no man could ever from hence imagin that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governours of Roman Provinces Origen saith The Peoples presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop it must be astante Populo the People standing by and this is that Saint Paul meant when he said A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop by the Divisions of the People that they were like to have shaken the Emperour's Kindness to the Christians For such a flame was kindled by it that he saith it was near destroying both the Church and the City and they had certainly drawn Swords if the Providence of God and fear of the Emperour had not restrained them Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet and after much trouble to the Emperour and many meetings of Bishops at last Eustathius was chosen Greg. Nazianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop saying it came to a dangerous sedition and not easy to be suppressed and he saith the City was very prone to it on such occasions And although there was one Person of incomparable worth above the rest yet through the Parties and Factions that were made it was a hard matter to carry it for him He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections that he wishes them alter'd and the Elections brought to the Clergy and he thinks no Common-wealth so disorderly as this method of Election was Evagrius saith the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable upon the division of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius the People rising against the Magistrates and Souldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order and at last they murthered Proterius Such dangerous Seditions are described at Constantinople upon the Election of Paulus and Macedonius by Sozomen and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius and after the death of Atticus by Socrates and after the deprivation of Nestorius And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius and about the Election of Flavianus at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom at Verselles by Saint Ambrose at Milan by Socrates and many other places I shall onely adde a remarkable one at Rome on the choice of Damasus which came to bloodshed for several days and is particularly related by Ammianus Marcellinus and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the Peoples consenting Power and so there are in all humane affairs But are these tolerable inconveniencies Is this Power still to be pleaded for in opposition to Laws as though Religion lay at stake and onely Magistrates were bad men and the People always good and wise and vertuous A man must have great spite against Men in Power and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wicked debauched and enemies to Piety and at the same time dissemble and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People besides their Ignorance and incapacity of judging in such matters and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreasonable contentions on such occasions But Saint Chrysostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases Saint Hierom saith they are apt to choose men like themselves and saith elsewhere they are much to be feared whom the People choose Origen saith the People are often moved either for favour or reward 3. That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters as Saint Ierom and others shew For by the Constitution of that Church before the alteration made by Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria was not onely to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters but by them So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs saith that after the death of their Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to election and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop and to the other Bishops to consecrate him To which the Bishops assented onely saying if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose but not otherwise Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the time of the Nicene Council and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith the custom was alter'd by a Council among themselves which determin'd that they might choose the most deserving person whether of that Body or not And there could be no room for popular elections whereever that Custom obtained which the Counterfeit Ambrose speaks of ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding But if this be onely a particular conceit of that Authour yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches without any mention of choice made by the People So when Narcissus retired from Ierusalem Eusebius saith the neighbour Bishops assembled and consecrated one Dius in his room and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius in whose time Narcissus returned but being grown very old Alexander was brought in to assist him by Revelation and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successour and acquainted the Clergy with it but not the People great disturbance was feared hereupon the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them and to settle their new Bishop who went and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly S. Augustin himself declares the sad effects he had often seen of the Churches Election of Bishops through the ambition of some
Ages and at last among us the royal Power overthrowing the other reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parlaments the Consent of the People is swallowed up therein since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation For not onely the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage derived from his Ancestours before the freedom of elections was granted Which shews not onely the great Antiquity of this Right but the consent of the whole Nation to it And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said That the King did dispose of them jure suo Regio by his Royal Prerogative as his Ancestours had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People than here in England and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here As to the inferiour Right of Patronage it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters as in a College together a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Country Presbyters c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice In the time of the first Council of Orange A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches c. 10. viz. If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno. A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk And the same were settled in the Western Church as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage and the endowments of Churches till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented and to give institution to the Benefice The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX plead That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage from the first planting of Christianity here For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built and at whose cost and charges they were erected and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves And this Ioh. Sarisburiensis saith was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us And the onely Questions now remaining are whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their own Pastours and supposing that it might be done whether it be reasonable so to doe And I conclude that 6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections 1. because it was no unalterable Right but might be passed away and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations and 2. because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings but may be remedied by Laws far easier than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves which cannot be done in a divided Nation without throwing all into remediless confusion 3. Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence Beza declaims against it as a thing without any ground in Scripture or any right in Antiquity and subject to infinite disorders In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King and so are the Bishops in Denmark In other Lutheran Churches the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates and in these the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State which hath Power to depose them And it would be very strange if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onely be discovered here where it is as unfit to be practised as in any part of the Christian world But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter for when the objection is put by him That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power and therefore they now consent he saith this seemeth a Iest for he saith 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power 2. They never consented that Parlaments should do what they list and dispose of their Souls or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls 3. They may as well say that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting 5. The obligation on the People was Personal and they have not God's consent for the transmutation So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves and all Rights of Advowson in the King or Noblemen and Gentlemen or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations and things utterly unlawfull among Christians since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny that the freedom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them do lie within the Magistrates Power and so binding Laws may be made about them unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives And if these may be justly settled by Laws then the
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
be happy and pleasant as the Paradise of God Lastly I pray that he would preserve you my Lord in perfect and long health for his glory and the good and advantage of that great and considerable part of his field which he has given you to cultivate and which you do cultivate so happily I desire too the help of your holy prayers and the continuance of the honour of your affection protesting to you that I will be all my life with all the respect that I owe you My Lord Your most humble and most obedient Servant and Son in Iesus Christ CLAUDE FINIS A Catalogue of some Books Printed for Henry Mortclock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended answer of T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of Schism and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined The Second Edition corrected by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the True Reason of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Irenicum A Weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Quarto A Discourse concering the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant with a particular Account of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Octavo An Answer to several Late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled a Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. the first part Octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Rom. Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church by Edw. Stillingflect D. D. Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book cutituled Catholicks no Idolaters by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty THE END Arch-Bishop Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition p. 423. Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works n. 34. Vita Juelli per Humâ—red p. 255. Preface to 2d Vol. of Serm. Sect. 11. Preface to the First Volume Sect. 18. Acts and Monuments Tom. 3. p. 171. Foxes and Firebrands 1680. Church History l. 1. p. 81. History of Presbyter l. 6. p. 257. Annales Elizabethae A. D. 1568. V. Thom. à Iesu de natura divinae Orationis Defence of the Answer p. 605. Page 55. Fair warning second Part Printed by H. March 1663. Contzen Politic l. 2. c. 18 Sect. 6 Sect. 9. Coleman's Trâ—al p. 101 Vindiciae libertatis Evangelii Or a Iustification of our present Indulgence and acceptance of Licences 1672. p. 12. Sacrilegious desertion rebuked and Tolerated Preaching Vindicated 1672. Answer to Sacrileg desert p. 171. 1672. Page 71. Page 72. Page 32. Page 250. Preface to the Defence of the Cure p. 17. Defence of the Cure of Divisions introduction p. 52 c. Sacrilegious desertion p. 103 104. Defence of the Cure p. 53. Dr. O. Vindication p. 4. Letter out of the Country p. 7. Pagâ— 4. Mischief of Impos end of the Preface Preface p. 11 13. Page 15. Mischief of Imposition Preface towards the end Christian Direct Cases Eccles. p. 49. Defence of Cure of Divis Introd p. 55. Ib. p. 88. Arch-Bishop Whitgift ' s Defence c. p. 423. Several Conferences p. 258 c. Orig. Sucr l. 2. ch 8. p. 220. Orig. Sacr. p. 367 368. Papers for Accommodation p. 51. Answer to R. Williams p. 129. Irenic p. 123. Page 5. Page 6 7. Page 8. Co. Iast 4. Part. 323 324. Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131. Mischief of Impositions Preface Fresh suit against Ceremonies p. 467. Pet. Martyr Epist. Theolog Hoopero Buc. r. Script Anglic. p. 708. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319. Ridiey's Articles of Visitation 1550. Vindicat. of Nonconf p. 13. P. 35. 37. Iacob's Answer to Iohnson p. 20 21. Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason Bradford's Confer with the Bâ— Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298. Iacob ' s Answer p. 82. Letters of the Martyrs p. 50. Plea for Peace p. 1â—0 Page 19. Page 21. Calvin Ep. 164. Ep. 55. Ep. 165. Tr. of Fr. p. 30. Page 31. Letters of the Martyrs p. 60. Bonavent 〈◊〉 Ps. 21. Angel Roecha de Sollâ—â—i Communione Summi Pontificis p. 33. 38. Calvin Epist. ad Sadolet De verâ Eccl. Reformatione c. 16. â—â—â—olamp Epist. f. 17. Bucer Scriâ—t â—â—gl p. 479. Dialogue between a Soldier of Barwick and a-English Chaplain p. 5 6. Beza Epist. 23. Part of a Register p. 23. Beza Epist. 24. p 148. Gualter Ep. ded ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad Câ—rinth Zanchii Epist l. 2. p. 391. See his Letter in Fullers Church-History l. 9. p. â—06 Bullinger Ep. ad Robert Winton in the Appendix to Bishop Whitgifts first Book Parker on the Cross Part. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 2. Vide Profane Schism of the Brownists Ch. 12. Giffords first Treatise against the Donatists of England Preface Gifford's Second Treatise Preface Answer to Giffords Preface Dangerous Positions c. l. 3. c. 5. The Second Answer for Communicating p. 20. Printed by John Windet A. D. 1588. Page 46. Answer to Ainsworth p. 13. Page 57. Preface to the Readâ—r p. 17. Brownists Apology p. 7. A. D. 1604. A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England Middleburgh p. 3. A. D. 1599. Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply n. 4. p. 240. Brownists Apol. p. 92. Brownists Apology p 7. Barrow ib. Barrow's Refutation of Giffard Preface to the Reader Sum of the Causes of Separation Ibid. Brownists Apology p. 7 8 9. Ainsworth's Counter-poyson p. 3. Ib. p. 87. T. Cs. Letter to Harrison against Separation in Defence of the Admonition to the followers of Brown p. 98 99. Page 106. Page 107. Page 91. Counterpoyson p. 117. Ball against Can p. 77. Giffard's Answer to the Brownists p. 55. Grave Confutation c. p. 9 10 11. â—ravâ—conâ—utation c. â— 12 13 15. Ibid. Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8. Giffard's Plain Declaration c. Preface Answ. to the Brown p. 10 11. Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation Sect. 2. highly commended by Mr. J. Cotton in his Preface before his Commentaries on 4 John Iâ— Sect. C 7 8. V. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson Hildershams Letter Sect. 3. Grave Confutation