to confess tho' De Synedr l. 1. Cap. 14.560 being an Erastian in his Judgment he was loth to allow the Word in this Text to signifie a College of Presbyters lest he should be forc'd to allow them the Power of Excommunication 4. To put this Sense upon the Word Presbyter in this Text and to make it to signify the Office is such an Inversion and Disturbance of the natural Order of the Word as is never to be allow'd but in case of plain Necessity lest we make the Sacred Scriptures a Nose of Wax of which Mr. Thorndike was too wise to be Guilty 5. And yet if you will needs take Presbytery here for the Office of a Presbyter which Calvin doth not do but rather for the Solemn Act by which the Office is conferr'd see how little it will be to your Advantage Doth it not then clearly follow that 't is by vertue of the Office it self and not by any Degree that some have obtain'd in it above others that Men are to be Ordain'd into the Ministry So that in whomsoever the Office of a Presbyter is found there is this Power of Ordaining others Have you not then ingenuously or inadvertently granted to our Ministers all that they demand in this Matter and prov'd it for 'em too from Calvin whom you pretend to alledge against ' em To what a pass now have you brought your Episcopal Ordination Are these the only Men that have Power to Ordain a Presbyter Or have they any Power or Authority at all to do it but as they are themselves Presbyters What is a Bishop but a Presbyter set in a higher Degree for Clerical Order and Government sake but as to Office the same with the Presbyter And therefore it is that the Titles are so promiscuously and indifferently us'd in the Holy Scriptures Nor did the Apostles themselves Ordain as Apostles but as Presbyters which is the Title they own in their Epistles and claim as their Honour And that it is the Presbyter not the Bishop i. e. consider'd only as such that must Ordain is put beyond Controversy by a rul'd Case that a Bishop or Prelate Ordain'd per saltum i. e. who never had the Ordination of a Presbyter himself but only of a Bishop can neither Consecrate nor administer the Sacrament of the Lord's Body nor Ordain a Presbyter Tho' for the necessary Ends of Clerical Order and Government the Bishop be set in a superiour Degree of Superintendency and consequently his Presence and authoritative Concurrence be necessary with a select Number of his best qualify'd Presbyters to confer Orders and to see the Laws of Christ duly executed in his Church yet where this Power is abus'd than which nothing in the World is apter nor hath been more abus'd where the Churches are impos'd upon and Presbyters tyrannically ravish'd of their just Rights and Priviledges and causelesly cast out of Episcopal Communion the Presbyter is nevertheless a Presbyter as to all the Parts and Purposes of his Office He may be robb'd of his Pulpit but not of his Office robb'd of his Maintenance but not of his Right to it robb'd of his Liberty but not of his Relation to Christ nor to his Church In the Holy Scriptures we find that Presbyters as such are vested with the Power of Rule and Government in the House of God 1 Tim. 5.17 Act. 20.17 28. But of the Investiture of Prelates or their Ordination by Imposition of Hands as of an Office distinct and different from that of the Presbyter we read not one Word in all the New Testament By what Law of Christ then doth he claim a despotical Power over his Presbyters any other than as the Head and Moderator of their common Council and in whose Name and with whose Concurrence for Order and Government sake all the necessary Canons and By Laws that conduce to the Peace Profit and Edification of the Churches committed to their Care ought to be issued and established Will you tell us they are the Apostle's Successors in Power and Authority So are Our Presbyters too 1 Pet. 5.1 2 3. both in Faith and Doctrin and all Things that are Common and Essential to the Office Prelacy is not of the Office per se but only per Accidens and which when duly exercis'd honourably conduces to the bene Esse of the Church but is not constitutive of its Esse We have hear'd indeed of no Bishop no King and ever thought it extravagant enough but never heard of no Bishop no Church till now Again you would have us to believe that Presbytery being a Name of Dignity is sometimes attributed to Ecclesiastical Officers of the highest Rank as St. Peter and St. John call themselves Presbyters and therefore it must needs here signify a Company of Bishops To this we Reply 1. That the Word Presbytery was never so taken for a Company of Bishops only of which there was but one in one Church which is the limited Sense either in the Times of the Apostles or of the first Centuries of the Church perhaps not till Chrysostome's Time but alway for the Collegium Presbyterorum and before we can believe that it is to be otherwise taken in this Text you must prove it 2. If the Word must be taken in your Sense for a Company of Bishops then either there is no particular Church tho' Diocesan that hath any Presbytery of its own or there must be more Bishops than One in every such Church or else you must say that your one Bishop is a Company of Bishops 3. What can you infer in this Case from Peter's and John's assuming the Title of Presbyter but that in all the common Acts of Ecclesiastical Government and Discipline they acted as Presbyters and not as Apostles And what then have you gotten by this Argument But you urge again That Timothy was a Bishop and had Jurisdiction over Presbyters therefore Presbyters could not Ordain him to his Office for they could not communicate a Power which they never receiv'd To this we Answer 1. That Timothy was an Evangelist 2 Tim. 4.5 which if it signify'd any more than a Preacher of the Gospel which was the Work of every Presbyter then it must signify something more than an Ordinary Bishop to which he had no particular Ordination but the Apostles Election of him as his Companion and his Mission to some particular Services in the Churches of Paul's planting So that the Presbytery Ordain'd him only as a Presbyter not as an Evangelist nor as a Bishop about which we have no Form Rule or Precedent in the Scripture 2. Whereas you say They could not communicate a Power which they never receiv'd We Answer That in this Case there was no need of it they Ordain'd him as a Presbyter and what other Titles he afterward arriv'd to were but Accidental But this Reason of yours seems to be bottom'd on a great Mistake viz. That the Ordainers communicate the ministerial Power to the Persons
Ordained whereas it is Christ that communicates the Pastoral Power and Authority by his Charter of the Gospel the Power is deriv'd from Christ not from the Ordainers As the Major of a City has his Authority from the Charter granted by the King and not from the Recorder who invests him in his Office And yet neither is this true that an inferiour Officer may not invest one of a superiour Order in his Office else what have the Bishops to do at the Coronation of Kings unless you will make the Regal to be an Inferior Office to that of the Bishop which if you do you may next pretend to an absolving and deposing Power too But you tell us again That we do not find in Scripture That to mere Presbyters any such Authority was ever committed nor are there any Footsteps of it in Antiquity And we tell you That we find not in Scripture nor in Antiquity that this Authority was ever committed to any other than Presbyters But if you insist That they must not be mere Presbyters we Reply 1. How do you prove that either Simeon that was called Niger or Lucius of Cyrene or Manaen who were commanded from Heaven Act. 13.1 2. to ordain Paul and Barnabas were any of them at that time more than mere Presbyters as to Matter of Office 2. Where do you find in all the Books of the New Testament not only that a mere Bishop but that any one single Person whether Bishop or Evangelist or Apostle or any other besides our Lord Jesus Christ himself did ever celebrate this Ordinance of Ordination without the assistance of some others more or less of the Presbytery If you instance in Paul's ordaining Timothy with his own Hands will that prove that it was with his own Hands alone especially while he tells us so expresly in words at length and not in figures That it was done by the Hands of the Presbytery 3. We will propose you a Case which is possible tho' we hope will never be real Suppose the Churches of Christ should be reduc'd to a very few and the Bishops of these few should all turn Hereticks or Persecutors of the Orthodox and cast them out of their Communion the Presbyters retaining their Integrity These Presbyters by your Doctrin cannot ordain so much as a Presbyter to continue a Succession much less can they create a Bishop to do it Must the whole Church then be extinct for lack of a Bishop to Head them Or would you expect to have one rais'd from the Dead or sent back out of Heaven to do it 4. As for Antiquity There is nothing more clear than that in the Primitive Churches the Bishops and their Presbyters alway acted in Conjunction in all Acts of Church Discipline both of Excommunication Restauration Confirmation and Ordination And in the Banishment or Absence of their Bishops the Presbyters alone without the presence of any other Bishop did by his order and allowance which he could not have done had it not been a thing in it self lawful execute all that the Bishop was to have done in Person among them Nay St. Jerom will tell you that the Presbyters have Power to Ordain a Bishop over them and invest him with his Episcopal Authority as they did at Alexandria Sir There was a Time within the Memory of Man that Our Bishops were banished from their Clergy in England and what was the Whole Church of England then extinct and cut off from the Head Christ Doth eternal Salvation go and come with Lawn-Sleeves Yet once more you tell us That the Office which Timothy had was given him by Prophecy 1 Tim. 4.14 Or according to the Prophesies which went before of him 1 Tim. 1.18 His Ordination therefore must have been an extraordinary Thing and not to be drawn into Precedent except in parallel Cases But our Pastors you suppose do not pretend that they are mark'd out by Prophecy 1. We answer These Prophesies whatever they were concerning Timothy respected his Person and not the manner of his Ordination 2. It is very probable that the Apostles had a more than ordinary Direction relating to the choice of Ministers or Church-Officers many times in their Days Acts 20.28 It is there said That the Elders of the Church of Ephesus were made Overseers of their Flocks by the Holy Ghost i. e. as some think their Choice and Nomination was by Direction of the Holy Spirit of God And Clemens Romanus says That the Apostles in those Days ordained Bishops or Presbyters 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 c. Discerning by the Spirit and having a perfect Knowledge whom they should Ordain But what is all this to the way of Ordaining by Presbyters is an extraordinary Thing and not to be drawn into Precedent It 's probable that it had been foretold by some one or other that Timothy would be a faithful and eminent Minister of Christ who but you would have concluded from thence That his Ordination by Presbyters was an extraordinary Case 3. May you not as pertinently argue That none of the Ordinations done by the Imposition of the Hands of the Apostles are to be drawn into Precedent because these were extraordinary Cases the Apostles being extraordinary Persons who had an extraordinary and immediate Mission from Christ himself nor do we know of any Bishops that now pretend to be marked out by an immediate Call from Christ or any Prophecy of their extraordinary Vsefulness that have gone before of ' em But Sir Before you had given your self and us all this Trouble to so little purpose you had done much better to have sate down and considered how you could have answered Mr. John Owen's ten Arguments from Scripture and Antiquity Owen's Plea for Scripture Ordination proving Ordination by Presbyters without Bishops to be valid to which to save Labour of Transcribing we refer those that are willing to see much more on this Subject III. The Declamation which you make against popular Ordination we are not at all concern'd in but join with you in our hearty Wishes that they that are would deeply consider it Now to conclude this your third Section Having read out our Indictment in all the Articles of it and examin'd it after your manner you come to sum up the Evidence or what you call Evident and bring in the Bill against us that we have in all these Respects exceeded the Novatians Donatists and Meletians But before you proceed to your Damnatory Sentence we hope your Charity will take into Consideration what we have already so briefly offer'd in our own Defence and what we have yet further to plead for our selves as your following Discourse shall give us Occasion Your fourth Section in which you pretend to blow us wholly up Sect. 4. and to beat us out of all our Fasinesses and not to leave us a Rag to cover our Nakedness with is a Collection of just half a dozen of some little Things which you have pickt up some-where behind
have all the same External Form or manner of Operation in the Service of the Body Order is to be preserv'd in the Church but how shall we agree what and whose Order it shall be Let us ask you soberly Is there no true Church in the World but yours If there be may not every one of these Churches which differ from you and from one another as much as we magnify their own Order as a Law to all the Rest as you now do And then tell us whether it be Order or Confusion that these Positions lead to or whether this be not the way to set all the Christian World by the Ears Here you complain that Men are generally averse from enduring any thing of Subjection to which we may add and altogether as prone to Domineering and Imposing Now the Obedience which is prescrib'd in the Texts of Scripture which you have cited you say is to be paid by the Faithful to those that are over them in the Lord But by the whole tenour of your Discourse you plainly insinuate that the Wisdom which is in effect the same with the Will of those that have obtain'd the Government of the Church must be the Rule to all their Inferiours And by their being over them in the Lord you give us to understand nothing else but their Power de facto in the Church where they sit in Moses's Chair as the Representatives of Christ in Government so that they must be obey'd without asking any Question for Conscience sake But for our parts we understand not how we can be secur'd against the danger of Church-Tyranny and Superstition if those Words of the Apostle 1 Thes 5.12 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Lord do not import the Bounds of our Obedience as well as the general Matter of it and Motive to it Church-Rulers may be forward to Labour and to Admonish too but if it be not in the Lord and according to the Lord woe be to them that are guided and influenc'd by ' em But let the Apostle's Exhortation be taken in the true intent and meaning of it and we will be as forward to obey as you There 's nothing in the World that we covet more than to see such Bishops and Pastors in the Church of England as the Apostle exhorts us to obey in the Lord that is without any personal Reflection such as require nothing of us but what the Lord requires that the World might see how much we would disdain to be out-done by any but Flatterers and Sycophants in our Love and Obedience to ' em What you say of the Oneness of Church-Government and of the People that are under it we agree to if you will but stand to your own Distinctions That what you say of both is to be understood of them so far as they agree to Christ's Institution And if Christ be not divided neither are they They are not divided I mean so far as they act according to his Will and the Rules of their Order If by these Rules you mean the Sacred Rules which Christ hath given them and not the Arbritary Rules which they give us We mean so too That the faithful People under their lawful Pastors we hope you mean Lawful by the Law of Christ and not only by the Law of Man make up one Body This you say is evident from their Duty and from their Rights From their Duty you plead 1. They are oblig'd to Honour and Obey their Spiritual Rulers Ay Sir In the Lord and according to the Lord. 2. It is their Duty to joyn together in publick Acts of Worship with that Company of Christians which they sind Established and in some Cases tho' only tollerated yea tho' Persecuted under a lawful Pastor where they reside This we acknowledge is their Duty where they may do it without Sin From their Rights which are the same every where you Argue That this Vnion is founded on a Divine Institution and the Baptismal Covenant in which they are all alike engag'd and not on a formal positive League amongst themselves No Sir nor on any thing that is merely Humane or of an Indifferent much less a doubtful Nature wherein the Substance or Essentials of Christianity do not consist What you object against the Independent Congregational way or any others of the same Practice and Persuasion in this Point we take not our selves to be concern'd in unless you mistake us all for such who have not that Dependance on and Communion with you which you are Quarrelling with us for Having been at great Labour to prove what none of Us nor perhaps any one else that is call'd Christian ever deny'd viz. That the universal Church is One Body you make your Application of this profound Doctrin by way of Encouragement to your selves and draw a most delightful Contemplation from it That it is now the same Body that it was from the beginning The same indeed is every true Church of Christ as it was from the beginning that is in all things that are absolutely necessary to Salvation but we would gladly understand where that pure Church is now to be found which hath not at all deviated or degenerated from what the Church of Christ was in the beginning 'T is true every true Church of Christ now in the World is deriv'd by Succession from Christ and his Apostles but dares the Church of England say that it is now the very same in all it's Circumstantials and external Modes and Forms of Worship Discipline and Ceremonies with those of the Apostles own Planting Where do you read your apostolical Rules or Precedents for any of those Things which you so zealously Practise and so arbitrarily impose on us as the Terms of our Communion with you and which are the only Matters in debate between us Yet you would have the World believe that without our full Conformity to these Things and our Communion with you in 'em we cannot be one Body with the Vniversal Church nor in Communion with the Apostles Nor is this all but that consequently we are out of Communion with the Father and the Son and so are in a state of Infidelity and Damnation Have we not herein a special Instance and Evidence of your Catholick Charity just like theirs of the Church of Rome who call those only Christians that are of their own Communion Let us be ever so Orthodox in all the Articles of the Christian Faith ever so right as to the Object of our Religious Worship or Reverent and Devout in the Acts of it ever so Sober Just and Righteous in our Conversation or ever so wiling to walk in Communion with you as far as we may do it without Sinning against God and our own Souls Yet for want of Conformity to you in all those unnecessary Things which you would impose on us we must be cut off from Christ and left to Perish with the Heathen World But if we will tamely put our Necks under your
Service of your Hypothesis and on the Judgment and Practice of the Faithful in the purest Ages alias the most Popish Ages so that you presume your Inference is clear That all those who have separated without just Cause from the outward Communion of that Church with which they ought or with which you will say they ought to hold Communion and so persisting in that Separation tho' otherwise never so Orthodox or Holy have hereby so cut themselves off from the Body of the Vniversal Church that they can do nothing that can qualify themselves or others for Communion with it So that by this your Rule of Catholick Vnity in outward Communion all those Persons and Churches that herein agree not with you are not of the Body nor united to the Head and then must necessarily be in a state of Damnation Woe be then to all those poor Churches that are to your Constitution and way of Government and Worship Strangers But by the way give us leave to ask you How it comes to pass that Baptism and Ordination received in the Church of Rome are accounted valid in your Church of England and yet Ordination in any Protestant Church that 's not of your Constitution accounted Null Or for what politick Reason is their Baptism allowed and their Ordination only Condemn'd Is it because the Church of Rome never separated from you nor you from it as all the other Protestant Churches have done Who must therefore be all abandon'd by you as Harlots that deserve to be ston'd while Rome is own'd for your Sister or your Mother and of the same Catholick Body with you Either own the Relation or renounce the Title of Protestant Will you say that these Churches were never in Communion with you and therefore did not go out from you Suppose this were true of the main Body of them that they were never in particular outward Communion with the Church of England tho' before the Reformation they were in the same Church with you and many of those and of their Children who were once actually in particular Communion with you went out from you on the same Account as we do yet supposing it otherwise How little will this help Them more than Vs as to the Oneness of the outward Communion of the universal Church in the Sense that you take it and urge it on Vs And now that we are upon Enquiries with you Pray be not offended if we ask you once more What think you of our first Protestant Reformers Before they actually separated from the Church of Rome were they not Members of that Church and in outward Communion with it If not how could they be said to separate from it But if they were let us ask you again was that Church of which they were then Members a true Church of Christ or not If not then that Church and all the Members of it was not united to the Head and consequently was no Church nor by your Rule of Catholick Vnity could do any thing to qualify themselves or others for Communion with any part of the Catholick Church and from whom then did your Church of England or any of the Reformed derive their Succession and Authority from the Apostles But if it was a true Church how could they according to your Notion of Catholick Vnity separate from it without involving themselves in the guilt of Schism with which you now charge us May we not hence conclude that to separate from a true Church of Christ that retains the Essentials of a Church is not always Schismatical nor a Solution of Catholick Vnity Will you tell us that these had a Warrant by a Call from Heaven to justify their Separation Rev. 18.4 2 Cor. 6.17 But on what Reason was this Call grounded Come out of her my People that ye be not Partakers of her Sins And doth not the same Call reach Vs as far as the Reason is the same Tho' the Sins of the Church of Rome were greater than those of the present Church of England yet what is Sin is Sin still and will by your own Concessions so far justify our Separation and on no other Account do we desire or pretend to justify it The Separatists condemn'd in Scripture and with whom you would sort Vs and so represent us to the World were Men of very ill Character as to their Morals Persons given up to Sensuality walking after their own ungodly Lusts tho' veild under a Form of Religion yet by their corrupt Lives they were visibly to be discern'd Now let the impartial part of the World judge whether this be so much our Character as the Character of those by whom we are thus Censur'd That the Fathers and Bishops of the first Ages were very jealous of the Union of their Churches and an intire Obedience to their Ecclesiastical Rulers very Passionately and sometimes Hyperbolically declaiming against Separation or setting up Pastors without the Approbation of their own Bishops is not to be denyed and for which they had some prudential Reasons The Christian Church was then in its Infancy and therefore requir'd a stricter Hand of Government over it for the preservation of its Unity in Communion the Faithful were not so well settl'd and experienced in their Way their Dangers were many ways extraordinary not only from the Heathen Persecutors but from the Jewish Bigots which were in so many Places dispers'd among them and had so troublesome and ensnaring an Influence on the young Gentile Converts Besides the many false and seditious Teachers which the Devil had Sown as his Tares almost every where among them the Orthodox Presbyters too few and generally too weak to deal with so many so potent and so subtil Enemies or to be entrusted with the Conduct of the Church without the Counsel and Direction of its prime Guides and Governours Besides the Honour and Satisfaction of Sovereign Rule and Dictatorship is what was ever very pleasing to Nature So that all these things consider'd we have no reason to wonder at the Heat of their Spirits in this Case And indeed the Church had then very great Reason to bless God for this their Zeal and most religiously to observe them in it especially while they had no cause to dissent or divide themselves on the account of any Heresies they Taught them or any disputable unscriptural Impositions that were required as the Conditions of their Communion with them There were no such Things exacted of Them as have been of Vs and our Teachers which made their Obedience easy and indisputable And you may observe that the great Reason of their Care to preserve the Unity of the Churches outward Communion was not to uphold a few unnecessary Ceremonies but to preserve the Purity of its spiritual Worship and Doctrin which was infinitely more valuable and consequential a circumstantial variety of the external Forms of Church-Administrations would have done the Church no more harm than the variety which we see in every Species
say in behalf of our Ministers must be referr'd to your Third and most consequential Article of our Indictment as its more proper Place and which we are now next to enter on and it runs thus III. That the Pastors we have chosen have no lawful Call to the Ministry This indeed if it could be prov'd were enough to convict both Vs and Them for Schismaticks Those Dissenters that think themselves unconcern'd in this Matter we are not now to answer for nor are we concern'd in what you say of them And as for the Philadelphians we know not what they are expecting but might we once see the Church of England reform'd according to the Scriptures we would expect a better Clergy than most of them now are I. The Ministers whom we profess to own and to follow you confess to have had some of them Episcopal Ordinations and others only Presbyterial Of the former you are willing to allow for the Honour of your own Church not only the validity of their Ordination but an eminency of Personal Abilities but in the exercise of their Abilities you fancy that they are some of those of whom Ignatius says they serve the Devil and your great Reason is not that they are Men of debauched and scandalous Conversation or of false and corrupt Doctrin but because they refuse to obey their Ordinary as you say they solemnly promis'd to do that is you think they have broken their Oath of Canonical Obedience To this we answer for them that if any of 'em have inconsiderately enslav'd themselves and betray'd the Liberties of the Church by an Oath or Promise to any Man Ordinary or Extraordinary to obey them any further than the Apostle requir'd to be obey'd by the Churches 1 Cor. 11.1 viz. as far as he himself obey'd or followed Christ we think 't is time for them to repent of such an Oath And whereas you tell us They can't expect a blessing on their Work while they continue in the Breach of such an Engagement We have as great Reason to think they can't expect a Blessing in keeping it at least being now perswaded of the Evil of it But yet our Charity obliges us to believe that they took that Oath in no larger Sense than is consistent with the Rules of the Gospel and are sure that it is no otherwise binding to ' em And this we hope you will not call a new or strange Doctrin in the Christian Churches Neither is this to degrade all Bishops or to abrogate their Office or overthrow their Chairs as you with so ill Design suggest but to reduce them to that Scripture-Foundation on which alone they may be more gloriously and firmly Established We cannot but remark with how light a Touch you pass by the Foreign Protestant Churches as one that is afraid of burning his Fingers pretending to have nothing to do with them on a Supposition which you are willing to allow that you may so rid your Hands of 'em that their Call to the Pastoral Office was extraordinary for which you quote something out of Calvin and Beza tho' little to your Purpose In what Sense these Churches understand the extraordinariness of their Call they themselves are best able to inform you Did they ever any of them pretend to be rapt up into the third Heavens where Paul once was there to receive a new Call and Commission differing from what Christ and his first Apostles delivered to and left with the Churches By what Angel or Bathkol or Vision do they say this Extraordinary Call was given them When and on whom was it that the Holy Spirit came down in the Form of Cloven Tongues to Seal them a Commission to go out and Preach another Gospel and to lay a new Foundation of the Gospel Ministry Can you bring us any Tidings of any thing like this out of their Writings or if you could would you not easily answer it by Gal 1.8 But how far are they from such vain Dreams as these Mons Turretin will tell you in what Sense they take their Call to have been Extraordinary Turretin de Necessâ—ria Secessione 〈◊〉 Eccles Rom. p. 228. Si Ordinarium dicitur quod Ordini primitus divinitus instituto est Consentaneum potest dici nostra Vocatio Ordinaria sed si equivoce pro eo sumiâ—ur quod inveterata consuetudine qualiscunque illa sit publice est acceptum extraordinaria dicenda erit quia plurimum abfuit ab ea Consuetudine More qui in Ecclesia Romana inoleverat If Ordinary be taken for that which is agreeable to the Order of Primitive and Divine Institution then our Call is Ordinary but if it be taken equivocally for that which is by long Custom of any kind commonly receiv'd then may it be call'd Extraordinary because so very different from that use and manner which had so long obtain'd in the Church of Rome You see now in what Sense they take their Call to be Extraordinary The Deliverance of the Church out of Mystical Egypt and Babylon was indeed an Extraordinary Deliverance but their Call to the Ministry was the Ordinary Call of the Gospel that Spirit of Wisdom Faith Patience Zeal Self denyal by which they were divinely influenced in their Reformation was Extraordinary and it had been better for the Church of England if her's had not been in this respect too Ordinary In the same Sense as the Reformation of Johosaphat Hezekiah and Josiah was Extraordinary in comparison of that of some other Good Kings who are noted for sparing the High Places so may the Call of these Foreign Churches be said to be Extraordinary M. Claud History of the Reformation Part 4. p. 86. 89. but that they acted by the ordinary Rule of the Holy Scriptures and the Practice of the Primitive Church they constantly affirm O Sir How poor an Escape have you endeavour'd to make this way that you may seem to be a little more Courteous to Foreigners than to your own Country-Men how pitiful a Go by is this and as foreign to Calvin's Sense as these Churches are to Your's What a strain will it cost you now to deliver your self from the Hornes of this Dilemma either to acquit Vs of what you have charg'd us with or condemn all the Protestant Churches in the World that are not of your Constitution and Communion And Excommunicate us all as Heathens and Hereticks that have no Gospel-Ministry nor Ordinances among them as the Church of Rome doth whom you hereby justify in all their Persecutions and barbarous Severities against them which looks very ill in a Protestant especially at such a Time as this But that our Ministers have not taken upon them the sacred Function in a new Way that was never approv'd in ancient Times shall be prov'd as you demand by a sight of their Patent and Commission if you have Eyes to read it in its proper Place II. Next you prepare to bring on your Tryal against a
second sort of Teachers who claim a Title to the Ministry as being Ordain'd by Presbyters And indeed when you shall have prov'd this way of Ordination to be Schismatical you will have done something in the Service of your Cause wherein if Saying were Proving and Confidence were good Evidence doubtless you would not fail But this being the main Hinge on which the whole Controversy turns it will be necessary to spend a little more Time with you here And first you make your Trip at our Ministers Heels by striking at the Stone on which they stand but you will find it is a Rock against which you may dash your own Feet but which will not move for all the Kicks you can make at it The main Scripture which with all your might you heave at is that of 1 Tim. 4.14 Neglect not the Gift that is in thee which is given unto thee by Prophecy with the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery Against the generally approved Sense of this Scripture you are pleas'd to Quote us Calvin himself whom you mistakingly call the Father of our Discipline and would have us to believe that he could find no such Matter in this Text and that he thought Presbytery here signifies but the Office of a Presbyter and so read to us the Sense of the Text thus That Timothy should not neglect but be careful to exercise that Presbyterial Office or Power which was committed to him by laying on of Hands Now by the way lest you should hereafter forget pray take notice that you have now granted that it was to the Office of a Presbyter that Timothy was now ordain'd not to that of a Bishop or an Evangelist But as for what you refer us to out of Calvin's Institutions We find that he was there offering some Observations which he had gather'd out of the Scriptures of the New Testament concerning the Ordination of such as are to serve in the Office of the Ministry and tells us that it is certain the whole Multitude of the People were not to impose Hands on their Ministers in their Ordination but only such as were themselves Pastors in Office to whom alone the ordaining Power belongs tho' he leaves it uncertain whether the Hands of many were always laid on in every solemn Act of Ordination but produces Scripture Instances that it was so done in the Ordination of Deacons Act. 6.6 and in the Ordination of Paul and Barnabas Act. 13.3 But that Paul here minds Timothy that he had ordain'd him with his own Hands tho' not exclusively of all others or with his own Hand only but rather that he was the principal Person and the only Apostle concerned in that Ordination and therefore Admonishes him to stir up the Gift that was in him by the Imposition of his Hands And afterward gives us his private Opinion that when the Apostle mentions to Timothy in his other Epistle the Hands of the Presbytery that he is not there minding him so much of the manner of his Ordination by the College of Presbyters of whom Paul was one and the chief in that Action but rather that he should mind lpsam Ordinationem his Ordination it self and the great and glorious Ends of it q. d. Fac ut Gratia quam per manuum impositionem recepisti quum te Presbyterum Crearem non sit irrita That so the Grace which he had receiv'd when he ordain'd him a Minister of the Gospel or a Presbyter might not prove in vain And now how far Calvin is like to serve your Purpose or to disserve ours we leave to any competent impartial Judge And yet if you think your Notion of Calvin's Sense be the right we must tell you you are a Dissenter from the generality of the most Learned of your own Church Mr. Herbert Thorndike will tell you If we take not our Marks amiss we shall sind Argument enough at least at the beginning for the concurrence of Presbyters with the Bishop in making of Presbyters and other inferior Orders In the first Place those general Passages of the Fathers Wherein is witnessed that the Presbytery was a Bench assistent to the Bishop without Advice whereof nothing of Moment was done must needs be drawn into Consequence to argue that it had effect in a particular of this weight Then the Ordination of Timothy by Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery will prove no less Indeed says he 't is well known that the Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Ecclesiastical Writers signifies divers times the Office and Rank of Presbyters which Signification divers here embrace expounding Imposition of Hands of the Presbytery to mean that by which the Rank of Presbyter was conferr'd But the Apostles Words running as they do 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 oblige a Man to ask when he is come as far as the Imposition of Hands of whom or whose Hands they were he speaketh of which the next Words satisfy Had it been 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Sense might better have been diverted but running as it doth with the Article 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 with Imposition of the Hands it remaineth that it be specified in the next Words whose Hands were imposed Thus this Word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the Gospel Luk. 22.66 and in Ignatius's Epistles signifieth the College of Presbyters which hath the Nature and Respect of a Person in Law and therefore is read in the singular for the whole Bench which being assembled and set is call'd 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in both Places and in Cornelius of Rome his Epistle to St. Cyprian where he saith Placuit contrahere Presbyterium Now Sir here 's your Mr. Thorndike against what you would impose on our Calvins But besides this we Answer 1. If the Word Presbytery is here to be understood of the Office then will it follow as we have before noted that Timothy's Office was the Office of a Presbyter What then is become of Timothy's Episcopacy which you so learnedly plead for in your Discourse of Church-Government Or When and by Whom was it that he was created Bishop 2. Camerarius tells us that it is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which imports the Office of a Presbyter So that here 's a foul mistake of the Presbytery for the Presbyterate the Persons for the Office 3. Ignatius who liv'd very near the Times of the Apostles and therefore may well be presum'd to have understood the Meaning and Use of this Word tells us 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Ignat. Epist ad Trall What is the Presbytery other than the Sacred Company who are the Bishops Counsellors and Assessours This Sense Clemens Alexandrinus and some others of the Primitive Fathers give of it nor was it ever taken in any other Sense by the Fathers till Origen nor in any Place of the New Testament doth it signify any other than the Company of Presbyters as Luk. 22.66 Act. 22.5 And this Mr. Selden himself is fore'd
if a Company withdraw themselves from it and shake off all Dependance on it and Communion with it all Communion if you speak this to us you must mean all outward Communion in those Ceremonious Acts of Worship and Matters of Discipline that lie in Controvesie betwixt us they cannot be of the same Body that they deserted And then it must needs follow That Your Church being Politically in Communion with the CATHOLICK and Ours out of Communion with you we are but as so many dead Branches that have lost their Union with the Body and all the Influxes of Life from the Head How gladly then would you see us in the Fire that you may warm your selves by us Sure 't is well for those of us you are so angry with that the Act De Haroticis comburendis is repeal'd But this Inference of yours you pretend to illustrate by several pat Instances The Empire of Persia you say was one Body under Darius but was not so when divided into several Kingdoms under the Successors of Alexander Very critically observ'd when thus divided they were not One particular Political Body as before yet were they true parts of One and the same Universal World still tho' divided into particular National Polities yet united still in all the common Interests of Human Nature and Society So a City is one Body but the Colonies that issue out from it and are form'd into other Cities under their own proper Laws and Jurisdiction cannot be Numerically and perhaps are not Specificially one Political Body yet they are one Kingdom and govern'd by the same common Laws and Statutes of the Kingdom And what the Kingdom is the worse for this Variety or Diversification of particlar Political Forms no Man can tell Nay suppose this Separation be made by a Revolt or Dislike of the Constitution of the Government of the City or of their Manners and Formalities and without the Publick Consent we hope this will not Out-law them nor Disfranchize them of any of their National Privileges and Rights as long as they behave themselves with due Loyalty to their Sovereign and peaceably to their Fellow-Subjects Now you say a Church hath this Communion with a City and with all Corporations Very true so the Church at Jerusalem was once the Vniversal Church and Gospel Metropolis But if all those particular Churches that have been separated from it into Political Bodies not only Numerically but Specifically distinct under their own Laws and Forms of Government Worship and Discipline and different from that of the first Mother-Church from which they issued be no more Churches because of these different outward Communions wherein they are not one with the first Church nor with one another then it must needs follow that You are no more a Church of Christ than We and so you have thus far set us on even Ground with your selves nor hath any one need to renounce the use of the Words or affront the common Sense of Mankind to draw this Conclusion from your Premises 2. You plead from a supposed Inconsistency it hath with Church Government and its Destructiveness of the Church it self and a vain excuse you say 't will be for Men to say that they are at an Agreement with the Church in Doctrin while by their Divisions they are tearing the Church in Pieces And this you are at the Pains to Illustrate by Comparisons Military Civil and Domestick as if it were an hard Matter to beat this Notion into Mens Heads But when all is done you won't imagine how little We think our selves concern'd in it for you have granted us and we cannot forget it that it must be a Causeless Separation or else it is not what you are declaiming on therefore till it appear that our Separation from the Church of England is Causeless we are not the Persons that are like to be hurt by your Arrows And as for our Officers by whose Conduct we are guided in the Matters of God and of our Souls they are neither Mutinous nor Seditious nor Self-Intruders as by your Comparisons you would Insinuate but generally as well qualify'd and altogether as lawfully call'd and commission'd and as fully invested with the ministerial Office according to the Rules of the Holy Scriptures as any of your Selves as we have already prov'd so that this Argument you may now lay aside among your broken Weapons till you find a proper Occasion for it 3. You argue from its Inconsistency with the Notion of Schism as it is express'd in the Holy Scripture i. e. If the Scripture Notion of Schism were the same with Yours And for this your only Instance is the Schism that was once in the Church of Corinth where every one said I am of Paul or I of Apollas or I of Cephas But this Faction among the Disciples at Corinth you told us in your second Section was but a Schism within the Church not from it and therefore will not give us the full Notion of Schism according to your own apprehension of it But we will let this pass for an Impertinence having already granted you more than this Instance can pretend to prove viz. that Oneness in Doctrin is not always enough to justify a Separation from outward Communion 'T is in your misapplying it to us that your great Mistake lies supposing that our Separation from you is as Causeless as were the Factious Divisions of those in the Church of Corinth which is the Thing that 's yet to be prov'd But it seems to us by the Tenour of your Discourse from top to bottom that let a Church be what it will either as to its Constitution or its individual Members ever so Corrupt in Doctrin Superstitious in Worship or Filthy in Conversation and degenerated from Scripture Rules and Institution yet while they hold together in outward Communion as the Church of Rome hath done both before and since the Protestant Reformation there is nothing in it that deserves the Name of Schism or that will justifie a Seperation from it Pray tell us plainly whose Cause it is you are pleading under the Name of the Church of England Have you never consider'd the Differences that there were in the Apostle's Days between the Churches of the Christian Jewes and those of the Gentiles in respect of Rites and Ceremonies and outward Communion and don 't you know to what a height these Differences were kept up by the Churches that were still so fond of their old Way that there was no Uniting them in this Point That Paul for his Non-Conformity to 'em could not shew his Face among 'em at Jerusalem without danger of his Life Have you not read what a feud there was once between Him and Peter on this Account Gal. 2.11 12 13 14. And how much ado the Apostle Paul had to preserve the Churches of the Gentiles from being bigotted to their Superstitions Now pray tell us whether the Church at Jerusalem or that at Antioch were the
true Church or whether of these Two you will please to cut off for the Schismatick or whether the Catholick Vnion were preserv'd between them both notwithstanding these wide Deffences and Dissentions in external Rites and Communion But if these were still One in Catholick Vnion we understand not How less Matters than these should make the Conformists and Non-Conformists of England to be Two so as that We must be condemn'd for Schismaticks rather than You. 4. You argue from the Scripture Distinction of the Schismatick from the approv'd and then tell us that those that live in Corformity to your Church are the approved and the beloved of God ay Sir the approved Drunkards and Swearers the beloved Woremongers and Adulterers c. for such are too many of those who are allowed Communion with you but we are the Schismaticks and the Reprobates because you have cast us out and will not admit us to your Communion without Conformity to your Ceremonies Doth not the Church of Rome tell us the same thing How generally and loosly do you talk of Conformity to the Church without making any difference of what is Good or what is Evil in it or what will justify a Separation from it and what will not the same Argument serves indifferently both Rome and You. The high Presumption you have of your Purity and the Inoffensiveness of your Terms of Communion is no more than what is common to the Biggots of the corruptest Church and Faction in the World But till it be better prov'd than hitherto it hath been you must excuse us that we cannot take You to be the Approv'd so as to condemn our Selves for the Schismaticks in not Communicating with you on such Terms as the Holy Scripture doth not require and our own Consciences are not satisfy'd in II. Your Second It has been said which you call our Second Argument runs thus That in the Apostle's Days there were independent and separate Churches planted in the same City But still you think it too much to be at the Charge of producing our Author or putting it into Form of Argument without which you do but juggle with us and misrepresent us to the World How far you intend to stretch your Independency of Churches we cannot Divine or whether by Independent Churches you mean Churches or Congregations only Separate as to outward Communion in the same City How then shall we form this into an Argument but in your own ambiguous Terms And then it will Hypothetically look thus If there were Independent and separate Churches planted in the Apostle's Days in the same City then are not the Independent and separate Churches now in England Schismatical But there were Independent and Separate Churches planted in the Apostle's Days in the same City Erg. And now that it is brought into this Logical Order for you we know not who will own it either Major or Minor If those that among us are call'd Independents will own it let them Answer for themselves But as far as it concers us we doubt you will have no great Reason to triumph in it by that time we have examin'd it The Consequence of the Major we deny because in the Apostle's Days there might be and we have Reason to think there were but too many Independent and Separate Churches planted in the same Cities by those false Teachers who then crept into the Churches and drew Disciples after them and of whom the Apostles often complain'd Act. 20 30. Jud. 19.3 Joh. 10. Yet thus your invidious Charity represents us that you may if possible perswade the World to believe that we are the Persons whom the Apostles prophecy'd and complain'd of and whom the Scripture condemns for Schismaticks c. As for your Minor That there were such Independent Churches planted in the Apostles Days if you mean by such as Schismatically Separated themselves we will grant it but if you mean planted by the Apostles themselves as your following Discourse on it plainly intimates let them that think themselves so highly concern'd in it Dispute it out for 't will be even all one to Us on whether side the Victory shall fall On this Argument you have left us little to do but to expect the Issue of the Squabble betwixt you and your Learned Dr. Hammond who tells you That as St. Peter was the Apostle of the Circumcision and St. Paul of the Gentiles so whensoever these Two great Apostles came to the same City the one constantly apply'd himself to the Jews receiv'd Disciples of such form'd them into a Church and left them when he departed that Region to be Govern'd by some Bishop of his own Assignation And the Other in like manner did the same to the Gentiles And this is what you endeavour very Learnedly to Refute Sir We will not presume to intrude our selves as Moderators between you however you may give us leave to gather up some of the great Spoyles of the Field at least a few of the broken Arrows to warm our selves by Now that the Apostles themselves were free to Communicate on all Occasions both with Jews and Gentiles is most certain knowing that the Partitian-Wall being now broken down they both made but One Catholick Church under Christ the Catholick Head But it is as certain that it was long before the Old Bottles could hold the New Wine without bursting Hence it is that there were for the first Age such Differences and Distances between the Jewish and Gentile Converts that they could endure no Religious Communion with one another 'T is true this Heat arose on the Jew's Side who were still so superstitiously Zealous for their Old Ceremonies and 't is a common Observation that the Weaker and more Superstitious are always the more obstinately Hot for the Exteriors of Religion and more for the Shadow than the Substance of it But so it was that they would admit no other than a Jew or Jewish Proselyte into their Communion or into any of their Synagogues at least not into their Temple as appears by Paul's hard Case at Jerusalem Act. 21.20 c. So that whether or no they were at first Apostolically Constituted as distinct Churches under their proper Bishops in one and the same City this is most evident that they had their different Forms of Woship and Religious Rites and distinct Communions and Assemblies whether under one City or Diocesan Bishop or more Neither do all these Arguments wherewith the Apostle laboured to defend his Gentile Converts against the Old-Leaven of the Judaizing Zealots and to convince the Jews of their unchristian Bigottry against the Simplicity and Liberty of the Gospel and to maintain the sacred Bond of Union and Peace among them prove that they were not of different Outward Communions yea else why should he say to the Jews I became as a Jew c. 1 Cor. 9.20 c. But he only endeavours to calm the Heats of their Spirits towards one another that they should not lay the
mighty stress of eternal Salvation on these little Things but notwithstanding these Differences which could not be cur'd but by Time they should receive and embrace one another as Fellow-Members of one and the same universal mystical Body And now I will tell you in few words how far You and We are concerned in this your Dispute with the Dr. Either there were Independent and Separate Churches planted by the Apostles in the same City or there were not Utrum horum c. If there were then 1. Your Dr. was in the right and you under a mistake in opposing him 2. What was done by the Apostles rules the case under the like circumstances to Us and to all other Churches to the World's end 3. If there were such a Division of Outward Communion among the Churches of the Apostle's own planting and by their Allowance and Order then the Differences of Outward Communion destroy not the Catholick Union But the Church is truly One by some surer and more adequate Bond than that of Uniformity of Outward Communion On the other side if all the Churches of the Apostles planting were always One in Outward Communion then were not the Ceremonies in Controversie between the Jews and Gentiles ever made the necessary Terms of their Communion but every one had his Liberty according the Sentiments of his own Conscience and private Judgment of using or not using them Because otherwise Outward Communion had been utterly impracticable Now whether of these two you will chuse is very indifferent to Us because either of them will answer well enough for Us in what you here Object against us And what now is become of your Notion of Catholick Unity let any one judge that hath but the command of one sober Thought III. The next thing that you are pleas'd to produce in our Names and call one of our Arguments is this That Jesus Christ hath declar'd that where two or three are gathered together in his Name he is in the midst of them And that we Assemble in this manner and are therefore assur'd of his favourable Presence Here also Justice would have quoted us its Author and Art would have lick'd it into Form for us that so we might have seen the proper Dimensions and Strength of it as an Argument Now in Logical Form we humbly conceive it will look after this fashion and speak to this effect Those that are gathered together with Christ in the midst of them are no Schismatical Assembly But we are gathered together with Christ in the midst of us Erg. But because the stuff you have here laid together for Us will not regularly be comprehended within the compass of one ordinary Syllogism it will be needful to support the Minor which seems to to be most in danger with another to this purpose Those that are gathered together in the Name of Christ have Christ in the midst of ' em But we are gathered together in the Name of Christ Erg. SIR Though we own the Scripture out of which you quote us these Words Matth. 18.20 in the true sense and meaning of them and bless God for the Gracious Promise contain'd in them yet as we never offered them as a Reason of our Separation from your Communion so neither do we own them as an Argument to justifie our so doing You herein trifle with us Had you durst to have engaged our Arguments you would not have made your self sport with these little Things which are justly enough liable to so many exceptions But this it seems is a Reed which you have borrowed from the Old Novations to smite Us with and with these you should have left it or some others of that Character and not in imitation of the Old Woman at Endor have raised up the Ghost of St. Cyprian to read us a Doom till you had first substantially proved that we are the Persons of whom St. Cyprian spake But this indeed is an Argument that you make light of and so do we IV. Your Fourth It hath been said is of the same Complexion and Value with the former The Postulatum that lies in quest between us is Whether our Separating from the Church of England in outward Communion be Schism And to prove our Innocency herein you pretend that we produce the words of the Apostle Paul Phil. 1.15 and 18. That Paul rejoiced that Christ was Preached even by those Men that did it out of Envy and Strife and if the Case of our Preachers were as bad as this as long as they Preach Christ We have no reason to be sollicitous about their Call nor You to be offended at their Work This we suppose you put in to make up the Half Dozen But if you would represent it as one of our Arguments you should have squeezed it into such a Syllogism as this that we might have known what to make on 't If the Preaching of Christ though out of Envy and Strife were matter of rejoicing to Paul then the Preaching of Christ though out of Envy and without a Call which you force into the Argument is not Schismatical But our Ministers do Preach Christ whatever their Principles or their Call to the Office be Erg. We wish you would do us the right to tell us from whom of Us you got this Argument Possibly some good Body or other that was not so well-pleas'd with your Rigours in stopping the Mouths of so many Hundreds of our Ministers at once may have said That if Paul did rejoice that Christ was faithfully Preached though by such as envied his Fame and Liberty in the Gospel then you of the Church of England have done very unlike to the Blessed Paul in silencing so many of the Able and Faithful Ministers of Christ who would have Preached him Sincerely and Peaceably and from a Principle of Love to the Souls of Men and that had as much a Call to Preach as You And if you will as you ought take it thus and call it an Argument We will own it as a sober Reasonning of the Case with you whoever were the first Author of it But when you mock us with the Man of Straw of your own stuffing you deal with Us as they dealt of old with the Christians whom they put into Bears Skins and Fools Coats to be laught at by the Mob and worried by the Beasts And so you deal with our Ministers 1. By representing them to be such as take on them the Work of the Ministry without a Call to that Office the contrary whereof we have already proved 2. In saying that Paul's Enviers Preached to none but the Infidels which is more than you pretend to prove intimating that if you could but get our Ministers banished into America or any other Infidel part of the World to Preach the Gospel to them that never yet heard of it then you will rejoice too as Paul did 3. In accusing them of Envy and Strife as the main Principle that sets them on work
to Preach Christ here so near to your Noses wherein you make your self a Judge of evil Thoughts 4. By your implicit complaint how much they exercise your Patience and Self-denial as those of old did Paul's Yet would you but lay aside your own Envy and Prejudices you might on much more comfortable Grounds conclude as the Apostle there doth that this their Preaching would be to your Advantage and Beneficial both to the Church and to your selves too V. The next Argument that you can afford us is this That we are only returned to those whom we had forsaken before and that we might do this since we had the Indulgence or the Liberty granted to us by the Law Before we meddle with this Argument let us turn it into Form after its Fellows and see how it will look then and who they are that will own it But in Syllogism it makes this Figure For a People to return to those Ministers whom they had forsaken before when they have Liberty granted them by the Law so to do is no Schism But we have now Liberty granted us to return to those Ministers whom we had forsaken before Erg. Sir It would look very ingeniously if you would now at last please to tell us from what Author of Ours you took this Topping Argugument which perhaps you think and would have others to think is one of the best we have to defend our selves with The truth is were it not for the Law that protects Us we should be badly able to defend our selves against Church-violence and doubtless there are Summer-flies enough among Us whose Devotion depends on this Liberty which the Law hath given us But had we not better Reasons to justifie our Cause against your Argumentations we should think our selves in an ill Case 'T is hardly worth our labour to follow you in all that you harrangue on this Head You say If our Separation was Sinful before we Conform'd our return to it must be Sinful And we think so too For the Law hath not alter'd the Case as to the Nature of the thing Wherefore your first Enquiry upon it is very pertinent viz. Whether our Separation before we Conformed were Sinful But instead of Enquiring you take it for granted that it was so and say 't is clear from what went before i. e. from your notion of Catholick Unity which we have examin'd and think that by this time you have little Reason to Glory in it But if this prove to be no clear evidence against us then it is not yet clear that our Separation from you is Causeless and therefore Sinful and Schismatical And we hope we have already said enough to destroy that Infant-notion of Catholick Unity in your Sense if we may but obtain an unbyassed Judgment upon it Neither do we need that Objection you here make for us That many of us were never Members of the Church of England and therefore no Deserters of it We commend you that you will be careful to raise no Objections but what you think you can Answer But you must first better prove that our Separation is Causeless and then we shall think our selves concerned to take notice of what you say Sir We are ashamed to hear a Protestant pleading so like a Papist for a Priestly Succession concluding that the Office of the Gospel-Ministry is utterly extinct without your Episcopal Ordination Had not this Antiscriptural Uncharitable Church destroying Pretension been so long ago baffled and therefore deserted by the Wisest and most Learned of your own Communion as well as by the Judgment of all Foreign Protestant Divines we should not have wondered so much at you Wherefore we shall not now Rem toties actam agere but leave you first to answer what hath been by so many and with so convincing Evidence written on this subject whose Names we need not mention to one that is so well acquainted with Books as you are In the mâ—an time we cannot but make a very particular Observation on the Ebullition of your Gall against the Liberty we now enjoy by the Benefit of the Law 't is well for us that this was not granted us as once by a Dispencing Power to which the late Reigns pretended but by a Better-design'd and Well advised Act of King and Parliament For to give us here a Taste of the Volatility of your Spirit of Charity you are bold to suggest that We are not the Persons that come within the intent of that Act and therefore can justly expect no savour from it because you say that Act was only design'd to give ease to Tender Consciences but ours are not of that number because not of the same Latitude with yours Oh how do your Fingers itch to be at your old Work with us again What a grief of Heart is the Indulgence which our Governours have so Graciously and so Necessarily granted us How fain would you cut us off from the Protection of the Laws under which we live as Loyally and Obediently as any of your selves And all because we have forsaken your Ceremonies and desire to Worship God in a way more agreeable to the Scripture Simplicity of the Gospel and more experimentally conducive to the Spiritual Good and Eternal Happiness of our own Souls We see by this that Paul was never in greater danger at Jerusalem on the account of his Nonconformity than We should be of You should the Government but once more let you loose upon Us. But that We are none of the Tender Consciences that come within the intent of the Act you pretend to prove by our former Conforming to you and Communion with you wherein you presume that we were then satisfied and thought it lawful Ay Sir we once thought it lawful i. e. not absolutely or in it self Sinful when we either knew no better or could get no better and we are of the same Mind still as we have once already told you and to which to avoid repetition we would referr you having for illustration of the Case first given you this Familiar Similitude 2 Kings 6.25 There was a time in Samaria when an Asse's Head was sold for Fourscore Pieces of Silver and the fourth part of a Cab of Dove's Dung for Five Pieces of Silver There was nothing so Ceremonially or Naturally unclean but was Hungrily fed upon and not one questioned the Lawfulness of it so that there were no Murder in the Case To the Hungry Soul every bitter thing was sweet But when the Siege was broken up and the Gates were opened and a Plenty of all Good Food was come should the Princes have Monopoliz'd it and by a severe Edict interdicted the free use of it and confin'd the People to the use of such things for kind and measure as they had found in their extremity would pass down with them and was just enough to keep Soul and Body together and condemn all such to Fines or Prisons or Banishment that should dare
though never so peaceably and temperately to make use of the Plenty that God had given them would not your Charity think this to be a little hard And truly while we think our Souls so much better and nearer to us than our Bodies we cannot take it very kindly to be so dealt with by You. Lastly To take your fair leave of this Argument you tell us that you are far from derogating from the Authority of Secular Princes But we must tell you that you are not so far as would better become you from reflecting on the Wisdom and Justice of those that are in Supream Authority over you and by whose distinguishing Favour it is that you enjoy your Ecclesiastical Preferments and We our Christian Liberty of Conscience and Immunity from the rigour of Penal Laws VI. You have now brought us to what you Call our Sixth Argument and that you may shew how bountiful you can be and how willing to make the most of what we have to say for our selves you have subtilly divided this One for us into Three The Bulk of the Argument we perceive lies thus That the way of the Separation is preferable to that of the Church i. e. Of the Church of England Erg. We Answer that to chuse that which is the more excellent and having now Liberty given us so to do we hope is no Schism at least in our Case And to suffult our Major you have found out for us Three other Subservient Arguments which yet you say are cut off by the Sinfulness of our Separation So that it seems your Goodness never intended they should do us any real Service And thus you could have found it in your Heart to have dismised them without farther Consideration But because you apprehend there is some stress laid upon 'em and to make your Triumph the greater You thought fit to bring them under a distinct Examination wherein we shall follow you with a very obsequious diligence 1. It hath been said that in the way of Separation we enjoy purer Ordinances Ordinances that are freer from Ceremony and the addition of things not commanded that set us at a greater distance from Popery c. But to rid your self of this way of Arguing you endeavour to smother it under a Heap of Absurdities which they fall into who would exclude from Religion all things not commanded and who make the greatest distance from the Church of Rome from which you seem Jealous of being drawn too far the Standard of the best Reformation And then you make us a long Quotation of the gross Absurdities of those Men whom you call the more Rigid Separatists out of Baylie's Disswasive and Paget's Arrow against Separation wherein we are not concerned unless it be as you well advise to caution us against the like wild Extravagancies This we take kindly enough from you and that we may not lye long in your Debt in this kind we think it as seasonable to desire you to consider by what Means and Degrees the Church of Rome arriv'd to its 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in Superstition and Idolatry Whether some such few uncommanded Ceremonies which you so zealously retain and unwarrantably impose were not the first Nest-Eggs to which all the rest were laid Whether they are not now as productive of more as ever they were when an occasion shall offer and whether there are not enough now in England that do expect it and have prepared their Nests for it Whether your few Ceremonies have not the same relation and subservient tendency to the grosser Superstition and Idolatries of Rome as the High Places of the Jews which some of their Reforming Kings through the instigation of their Priests were so loth to let go were of the grosser Idolatries of the Heathen And whether you are not as much concerned to beware of leading your selves and others into the Gulph of the foulest Superstition by an abuse of your Power as we have to beware that others run not out into Extreams by our doing but our Duty You seem to grant us with the generality of your Conformists That there is nothing to be admitted as an Essential part of God's Worship that is not the subject of a Divine Precept But would you not then by an innuendo have us to believe that some Integral Parts may be admitted without any such Precept Which you had need to prove before we can be very forward to believe But then you say indefinitely That External Rites and Circumstances of Worship whether English or Romish Jewish Greek or Barbarian are of another Nature and indeed we think so too but being not forbidden of God expresly or by consequence are not Sinful And herein we should agree too could it but be once agreed what is by consequence forbidden For our parts we are apt to think that the consequence of those first words of the Second Commandment and all those Scriptures of the Old Testament that condemn the using of any thing in God's Worship which He hath not commanded or required That that of Matth. 15.9 and that of the Apostle Colos 2.20 21 22. will go far to condemn all those Rites and Ceremonies us'd in Divine Worship which are of Men's Invention and not necessary ex natura rei whatever their pretended usefulness on the account of their significancy be Besides for the aggravation of our Guilt and our fuller Conviction you would have us to consider how few of these are required of us as Private Men. To which we reply that this brings to our Minds how Lot on a better Principle and to better Purpose once pleaded for Zoar Is it not a little one But whether there be few or many we know no Power you have to require nor any warrant we have to admit of any for he that may require one may on your Principles require ad libitum as many as he will But that it should be impossible to preserve Peace and Order in the Church without a Conformity to these things is owing only to the disorder of your own Spleens and your pertinacious Zeal for them Would you but give every one his Liberty in these things which your selves call indifferent according to the Apostle's Rule Rom. 14. alibi we know not who would disturb the Churches Peace about them You say That in the Primitive Church as many Ceremonies were used as now are required by the Church of England and what if we grant that there were as many and more will you argue from the Primitive Churches using to your Churches requiring and imposing Or do you know which way to prove that their Effects of Charity or Kiss of Peace or the Woman's Vail were of the Apostles Appointment or Institution 'T is true the Apostle argues the Decency of the Woman's being cover'd and of the Man's being uncover'd in the Place and Time of God's solemn Worship 1 Cor. 11. But as for the Matter or Mode of the Covering he hath left this to every
one's Liberty for any thing we have yet heard of and this being a Matter of natural Decency as he there argues at Ver. 14.15 we take it for our Duty to observe as one of our Ministers in an Essay on that Subject hath not long ago taught us But the Inference you drew from this had need of a little better proof Viz. That if the Church hath Power to lay aside such Rites for you confess they are Alterable tho' yours be like the Laws of the Medes and Persians so it hath Power also to appoint others of the like Nature and is oblig'd to do so upon Emergent Occcasions as the Prudence i. e. as the good Pleasure of your Bishops may direct But for our parts we cannot think that your Consequence is good Viz. That because the Church hath Power to Purge it self of some unnecessary and offensive Vanities therefore it hath Power to Introduce others much less that it is oblig'd so to do For we cannot believe that because Hezekiah had Power to take down the Brazen Serpent and to cast it away as a Nehushtan which had been a Symbol of God's own Appointment and of so long standing that therefore he had Power or was under any Obligation to erect another Gambol of his own Invention to stand in the Room of it 1. Then we will say with you It is certain that the publick Worship of God ought to be Celebrated with such Ceremonies as are suitable to the Dignity and Solemnity of the Work and agreeable to the general Directions of the Holy Scripture and you might have added to the Purity and Simplicity of the Gospel and which are Necessary to the right Performance of the Work 2. That Ceremonies us'd in Divine Worship ought to be Significant of some Spiritual Grace or Expressive of some Christian Duty is certain because else they are but Herb John Useless and Impertinent which would but Affront the Deity we pretend to Worship And so indeed we find that all the Ceremonies of Christ's Institutions were Symbolical and Expressive but to argue that because Christ did institute symbolical Ceremonies in his Church therefore you may do so too is what you may not expect our Assent to till you have prov'd your Power in and over the Church to be equal to that of Christ or shew us the Patent he hath given you to justifie your so doing The little Instances which you produce of Smiting the Breast Lifting up the Hands in Prayer Kneeling on the same Occasion and the putting on some new Garment at the time of Baptism have been indeed things taken up into common Use as naturally Expressive of some inward Devotion or Affection of the Heart or of outward Decency and almost common to all Mankind and when you shall have discover'd and prov'd any Divine Institution of them we will acknowledge our Sin if at any time we disuse them on such Occasions but to Argue from the Antiquity of their Use to the Churches imposing Power is as Orthodox and Valid in England as it is in Rome or Spain or any other Church true or false in the whole World 3. That the H. Scripture directs us in general to do all things Decently and in Order we do as zealously own as you But then why should not that of the H. Scripture from which we take our Rules of Gospel worship determine to us what is Decent and Orderly Or if by the Old Testament you would justifie your Ephod and Organs and Festivals and Ceremonious Consecrations or any thing else that the Christian hath borrowed from the Jewish Church why do you pick and chuse and follow your Rule at halves Are not the Harp and the Trumpet and the Viol and Cymbol the Holy Oil and all the rest of the Priestly Robes and Utensils of the Divine Service which you have left out altogether as Decent and as Significant as what you have taken from thence or have been borrowed from any others and which have as much to shew of a Divine Institution 4. Your next Paragraph looks more like Banter than Argument for you tell us in Effect that we ought to satisfie our selves with an implicit Faith of the Lawfulness of the Ceremonies impos'd on us and of their Consormity to the End for which they are appointed because it is not Necessary that every one that uses them should know the Reasonableness of their Institution so that we ought to make no Question of the Lawfulness of what you require of us even in the High and Important Concern of God's Worship and our own Salvation how Unreasonable soever it appears to us and are we not like to be edefi'd much by what we don't understand Is this one Article of your Faith too That Ignorance is the Mother of Devotion Must we put out our own Eyes and make no Question for Conscience sake either of the Lawfulness or Reasonableness of what you require of us but follow the Conduct of your Customs believing as the Church believes Is this 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Reasonable Service that God now requires of the Gospel-worshipper And is this some of your Protestant Doctrine But to satisfie our Consciences herein you Instance in the customary Way of taking an Oath by kissing the Book which you say may safely be done by such as know nothing of the Original of that Ceremony nor are satisfi'd of the Fitness of it what nor of the Lawfulness of it nor whether the Common-Prayer be in the Book or no If Custom will serve for a Rule in Civil Matters must it be so in the highest and most sacred Acts of our Religion too 5. And this now brings you home to your main Topick Custom from which you profess to take the Significancy of your Ceremonies and the Measures of Decency as that which gives Rules both for Words and Actions and Habits and Gestures 'T is true Custom hath a great stroak to conciliate a Decency and Significancy to these things and may serve very much to excuse the Use of them in Civil Conversation and to offer any thing to the holy God in Worship which Civil Custom hath made Undecent or Ridiculous is horribly Prophane But will you hence argue that what Custom hath made Decent in Civil Conversation is therefore so in Religious Worship and fit to be impos'd as a Condition of Christian Communion Or that what Religious Custom hath made Decent and Significant in the Opinion of the Superstitious and Idolaters is therefore lawful to be us'd and impos'd by you Tho' the Apostle pleaded from the Custome of the Churches for what he call'd on the Corinthians for 1 Cor. 11.16 yet this was but one of his Arguments and which if you observe he urges only negatively he doth not plead for it because it was a Custom but pleads against their contrary Practice because they had no such Custom And pray which of those Ceremonies which you contend for and make the indispensible Condition of Communion
with you might not the Apostle have said we have no such Custom So that this Argument recoils upon you and flies very sorely in your own face 6. Your next Paragraph tells us what you have to say for the Sign of the Cross which you use in Baptism for which you cannot pretend to any Apostolical Institution but an Old and General Custom you fancy it to be almost as Old as the Apostle's or not above an Age short of them 'T is true the Image of the Cross crept very early into the Church He that sows the Tares is not wont to be long behind him that sows the Good Seed in the Field But we hope you will not say that the Earliness of a thing is enough to justifie it And that it was very commonly though we cannot say universally used as an Ensign among the Christians and as a visible Badge of their Christianity especially before the Heathen who were wont to upbraid them with their Crucified God we will grant neither will we uncharitably censure the Zealous Principles or Prudential Reasons on which it was at first taken up by such as foresaw not the ill use that would in After Ages be made of it However though it were taken up in those Days as a Testimony against the Infidel World and in token that they were not ashamed of their once Crucified LORD and used by them not as any part of their Worship but only for distinction sake between Them and Heathens yet this is but a precarious kind of Apologizing for the using much less for the imposing of it now when there is not per ratio the same reason for it especially after it hath been so generally and so long as idolatrously abused by such as have prevented the first Design of it as ever Gideon's Ephod or the Brazen Serpent were abus'd Nor doth it yet appear how our Protestant Reformers have or ever can free it from the Pollution of those Abuses whereby the Superstitions and Idolatries of Men have defil'd it by putting it into your Liturgy and making it a significant Sign and imposing it on us as an Integral Part of the Sacrament of Baptism without which that Sacrament is not to be esteemed Perfect and all this without any intimation of instruction or warrant from him who instituted and left this Sacrament intire with his Churches Baptism as our Saviour himself instituted it is but one Symbolical Sign but you by adding to it another of your own devising have made it Two which to us appears like the setting of your Thresheld by God's Threshold and your Post by God's Post Neither will the great Names in which you boast of the Saints and Martyrs now with God who in the Days of their Flesh walked with God and Worshipped according to their present Circumstances and the Light they had then attain'd to justifie your practice in this more than in any other thing which is now acknowledged to be the imperfection of these more early and unexperienced Times 7. You can't yet have done with your beloved thing Custom it being that on which the Life of your Cause doth depend From Custom you take your measures of Decency or Indecency in all things that you are pleased to call indifferent that is all those things that may be by the Wit of Man superadded as Accidental or Integral Parts for only the Essential Parts are by you excepted of God's Worship And whether this Position do not open a wide Door to all the Superstitions in the World and justifie all that hath ever been done of this kind in the most degenerate Churches let any but a Bigot judge 8. But now you begin to be more Orthodox when you tell us That things which according to Custom are Signs of irreverence amongst Men are Marks of Prophaneness and Contempt when they are used towards the Almighty Tho' here you might have remembred to have made an exception of some few things but in general what Custom represents as Undecent or Rude in Civil Conversation deserves a worse Name in Religious Worship If we rudely rush into God's Presence without an awful sense of his Majesty upon our Hearts and such an outward Behaviour of Body as either Nature or Custom hath made expressive of our inward Fear and Reverence though without any of those quaint Ceremonies which are of Humane Institution we may indeed justly fear the due punishment of such Irreverence And now Sir if you lay all these things together as you advise us to do you may find that what you call the Reverence and Decency of your Services is indeed their Defilement that in what you call your Laudable Customs you act against the Scripture Rules of Spiritual Worship and Gospel Simplicity and have deserted the way in which Christ and his Apostles walked and deal with us in that Tyrannical manner which the Holy Scripture condemns As for outward Bodily Worship we own and practice as zealously as you though not in your Formal Ceremonious way which seems to be more Artificial than Natural and so nearer of kin to Graven Images You are for setting forth your Publick Services with Pomp and Art we are for what is more Plain and Rational and naturally Expressive of the hidden Man of the Heart and therein more Agreeable to the Tenour of the Gospel We are careful to avoid whatever Nature Scripture or Custom hath made a Mark of Irreverence in the Worship of our God but we know no Authority we or any others have to prescribe particular positive Laws in these things to others Kneeling in Prayer we own as a Gesture which both Nature and Scripture directs to and so we practice though not from a Conscience of its absolute necessity either in our own Private Houses or in the Publick because God hath allowed us a Liberty in it and all the Saints before us have used the same Liberty nor do we understand why you should so strictly require it of us in Publick rather than in Private which your selves do not observe in every Prayer you put up to God there unless it be from a conceit you have that the Publick House is more Holy than the Private which is a Notion too Jewish for us to entertain To conclude this Head omitting as you say some other Particulars in debate between us which perhaps you are not willing to undertake the Defence of you think you have one thing that will demonstrate to us the weakness of our Exceptions against the Ceremonies of the Church and shew as the Irreverence that is used in our Meetings And what you mean is the Lord's Supper which in our way is appointed to be received sitting Now against this you begin to demonstrate very gravely thus Is there any Precept for this in Scripture Or if none can be found is it not against the Second Commandment Is it not an Idol This you offer us Ironically but we reply to you in Earnest that we find that in Scripture which
warrants our Sitting at this Sacrament but never a word of Kneeling by Precept or Precedent of Christ or his Apostles in all the New Testament nor in the Practice of the Churches while they retained their Primitive Purity therefore you are as much concerned in the Second Commandment on this account as we You tell us for certain that this Matter is not decided in Scripture But why is it not there decided Because it is not expresly required or forbidden and where the Scripture is not very punctually express there no doubt Men may devise and do and impose what they list without any regard to Scripture Consequences But yet you find that it is not for your Interest alway to use this way of Arguing The Practical Precedents and Examples of Christ or his Apostles which you find in Scripture will sometimes amount with you to the force of a Precept when you apprehend it will fall on the side of your Beloved Ceremonies Nay you can plead very stiffly the Authority of an Old Custom of the Churches which hath been taken up and perhaps superstitiously enough long after the Apostle's Days But now it seems there is nothing to be taken for certain that hath not a plain Scripture command wherein we think you are not so well aware at what an uncertainty you have lest the Cause you have now undertaken Though you cannot be ignorant of what hath been already said by so many of the Learned of our Way in the Vindication of our Practice herein yet let us once more see if we may not find much more in the Holy Scripture for Sitting at this Sacrament than for Kneeling Now it is certain that this Sacrament as to the Externals of it is but a Ceremony tho' of the most Sacred Institution and Highest Importance both a Signifying and a Sealing Ceremony and he that instituted it did best understand the Nature and Ends of it and what Gesture and Circumstances would best become the Celebration of it And his own Example herein we think is sufficient to warrant if not to require our Imitation But when we look back to the Institution we find that Christ sate down with the Twelve and Eat the Passover with them Here the Gesture was expressed and 't was Sitting not Kneeling Matth. 26.20 And as they were Eating without changing the Gesture he Instituted and Celebrated this Gospel Ordinance and Administer'd it to them with his own Hand verse 26 27 28. Mark tells us as they Sate and did Eat Mark 14.18 i. e. the Passover and in the same Posture still As they did Eat Jesus took Bread and Blessed it ver 22. Luke also tells us That be Sate down and the Twelve Apostles with him Luke 22.14 and in that Posture Administred his Last Supper to them verse 17 18 19 20. These are the only three Evangelists that particularly mention the manner of our Saviour's Administring this Ordinance and they all speak expresly of their Sitting but never a word of Kneeling in either of them Thus Christ and his Disciples did Eat it together as they were wont to Eat the Passover which was the very same Ordinance of the same Divine Institution Signification and Mystery and equally Sacred though of a different Form as this of the Gospel is And will you now say that this was irreverently done That it had too much of Familiarity and two little of Decency or Humility Dare you thus Blaspheme the Wisdom of your Saviour Did not he understand the End and the proper Signification of his Own Mystery as well as you Hath he told you again and again that he and his Disciples did Eat it Sitting and will you tell him that it ought to have been done Kneeling May he not then demand of you who made you his Counsellors or his Correctors And who hath required this voluntary Humility and Will-worship of you But you tell us that there is a Prayer with which you deliver the Elements to the People and therefore it ought to be received in a Praying Posture A Prayer viz. The Body and Blood of Christ preserve thy Body and Soul unto Eternal Life To which we answer 1. This which you call a Prayer sounds more like a Priestly Benediction or kind of Exorcism being repeated over and over to every individual Communicant so that the Kneeling seems to be requir'd rather in Honour of the Office as in Confirmation and Absolution than in respect of what you call a Prayer 2. Who made this Form of Words for you Or required it of you Is there any mention of this or of any thing like it in the Institution Though we grant that the Heart ought to be full of Holy Ejaculations Vows and Self-resignation in so Sacred an Action and which may be done every way as Decently and Reverently Sitting or Standing as Kneeling and wherein every one ought to have his own Liberty and Freedom of thought in the Exercise of all Graces according as they find particular occasion in and from themselves and wherein the Minister from the Experiences of his own Heart may piously and profitably suggest to their assistance in it and this reasonable Service we reject not 3. Why do not You Administer on your Knees For if it be a Prayer 't is you that properly Pray and the People say Amen Doth not your requiring it of others condemn your selves Why must you Pray Standing and they Kneeling 4. Though Kneeling be an ordinary Praying Posture yet if you will excuse your selves you must grant that it is not indispensibly necessary The Apostle bids you Pray 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 continually or without ccasing but should you be bound to Kneel continually we doubt that would not be very pleasing Judge now whether your Practice herein be not irregular to say no worse of it What the Reasons were of our LORD 's Instituting this Sacrament with a Table-Gesture and of what it is significant we will not now enquire 'T is enough for us that we know his Will in it by his Practice But you know that we have something else to Object against Kneeling in the Act of Receiving This Gesture is now become scandalous at least to some because it Symbolizes with the Idolatry of the Church of Rome in Worshipping the Host and by whom as some say it was introduc'd and impos'd to support their Bloody Doctrine of the Real Presence or as others think that this was the occasion of that Idolatry so that here is an unexcusable appearance of Evil in it and therefore having no Command of God for it nor Apostolical Example we ought not to continue its use much less to endure the imposition of it as if it were of necessity Neither is your Churches declaring against the Idolatrous use of it enough to purge or to defend it unless it were a matter of particular Divine Institution As for those that think it their Duty or their Liberty so to express their Reverence to Almighty God in this Sacrament
with a just Abhorrence of all Idolatrous thoughts or pretensions we do not judge them but to do it as of necessity we take to be a piece of Superstition and a weakness to be pitied II. The Second Branch of the last Argument you can afford us is this That the way of the Separation affords us Communion with a better People than those which we have deserted 'T is easily discerned from what sort of Dissenters you have rak'd up this Argument to cast it without distinction in our Faces But we are not the Persons so much concern'd in it as you would represent us to be However we will not dismiss it without giving a short touch of our thoughts upon it in what you fancy that you have spoken very much to your own purpose and altogether as pertinent to our Case But first we will premise that neither You nor We have any great Reason to boast of our Goodness it would better become us to lament every one his own Faults than to say to one another Stand by thy Self come not near to me for I am Holier than thou That there is Wheat as well as Tares with You and Tares as well Wheat as with Us we readily grant though your Charity condemns us all for Tares and such as are fit to be burnt and that not for any Heresie in Judgment or Immorality in Practice or Idolatry in Worship but because we dare not bring our Consciences under the Yoke of your needless Ceremonies We do not pretend to be Churches without a Mixture of Good and Bad nor do we hope for any such in this World Yet we must say the more the necessary Discipline is neglected and Prophaneness tolerated yea encourag'd by the Examples of so many of your Clergy and the most Ignorant and Scandalous ones not only admitted but press'd to come to the LORD's Table with you we can have the less comfort to join with you in these most Sacred Mysteries of our Religion But yet should we grant that all this were too little of it self to justifie our Separation we cannot think that what you offer us from Scripture on this Head doth at all affect our Case 'T is true in the Church of Corinth there were Corruptions Disorders some foul Immoralities and neglect of Discipline and yet the Apostle doth not advise them to purge themselves by a Separation but endeavours to reduce them to the Holy Rules of their Institution both in Worship Discipline and Manners And being a Church of his own Planting his Authority was prevalent there what need then of Separation when Reformation could be obtain'd without it But O that this were our Case Where is the Apostle now that shall judge between us and Authoritatively decide our Matters for us To whom shall we go with our Complaints when those that call themselves the Apostle's Successors will not hear our Complaints nor hearken to the Apostle's Words nor walk by the Apostle's Rules nor regard our Remonstrances and Petitions If the Foundations be removed what can the Righteous do If those that should head the way will not go before us must we not go alone Had the Rulers of the Church of Corinth refus'd to obey the Apostle's Orders and insisted on their own Authority and the Purity of their way as needing no Reformation would not the Apostle have advised to Separate from these Men Though Separation be never in it self desirable yet it is sometimes necessary And as for all the ill consequences of Separation which you have mentioned with their Aggravations here we will concurr with you when once you have prov'd our Separation to be Causeless or Unnecessary But till then we are not the Persons concern'd but by your own Rule are bound in Conscience to Separate from those with whom we cannot hold Communion without Sin III. And now we are come to your Third and Last It hath been said That the way of the Separatists conduces more to our Edification And that if we would provide what is best for our Bodies we ought more especially to do so for our Souls That we are more Edified by the Dissenting Ministers than by the Conforming Clergy and think it requisite to be Hearers of those by whom we profit most This Argument you say is Popular and therefore the more Dangerous wherefore you have according to your Art bestowed it the more distinctly under these Four Heads of Enquiry I. You Enquire what is the true i. e. your new Notion of Edification and on very strict enquiry you say that you have found that Edifying as applied to Spiritual Matters signifies the Advancement of Persons in some Spiritual Good and to Edifie them is to do that Work of Charity whereby we become beneficial to their Souls And thus far we think you are right as to the Active and Transitive Signification of it But would you have us to believe that Edification is a thing that hath relation only to others and not to our selves And for this you cite us 1 Cor. 8.1 Charity Edifieth and several other Scriptures where you find this word mentioned Whence you conclude That 't is the Edifying of our Neighbours that is required of us and that of our selves is never enjoyn'd under this Expression nor can it well be sought but in conjunction with the Publick Good Sir Whether the care we ought to have of our own Souls be injoin'd us under this Expression or no if the thing we intend by it be enjoin'd what you have hitherto said of it is but Logomachy For we hope your Charity would not go about to perswade us that if we endeavour to Edifie others 't is no matter what becomes of our own Souls And we have reason to think that where the Edifying of others is required the Edifying of our selves is necessarily imply'd in it and to be concluded from it a Majori Thou therefore which Teachest another teachest thou not thy self Rom. 2.21 Lest when I have preached to others I my self should be a cast-away 1 Cor. 9.27 Should not our own Souls be as dear to us and as much the subject of our care as the Souls of others Would you make us the Keepers of your Vine-yards to the fatal neglect of our own as the Spouse once complain'd Cant. 1.6 Besides 't is a Solecism in Nature for the Liver to prepare good Blood for the nourishment of all the other parts of the Body besides its own proper Parenchyma and is not the Parallel as great a Solecism in Divinity Sir If this be your Spirit of Charity and your way of Edifying you may recommend it to those of your own Tribe that can Preach Faith and Repentance Charity Humility Sobriety Continency and Mortification to others but not to themselves too well like those of whom Christ spake Matth. 23.4 But by your Learning you have discover'd that Edifying signifies Building and Building hath relation to a House and you observe that Houses do not build themselves but must
be built by others and this House you say as the word is here to be taken is the Church for which you quote us two pertinent Scriptures in which the Apostle speaks of Edifying of the Church But can you inform us why it is not as proper and as necessary for Temples to be Edified as Churches and whether every individual believer be not call'd the Temple of the Holy Ghost 1 Cor. 6.19 Nay do you not grant us in other words as much as we crave when you say that the Polishing and Perfecting those Living Stones of which the Church is Built is the Edifying of it yea and thus the Church is said to Edifie it self Eph. 4.16 Well then if Edifying be the Word that doth offend you pray strike it out of our Argument and put in Polishing and Perfecting and it will please us all as well And thus we will conclude with you That if we bring new Proselites into the Church i. e. by sound conversion to God and not to a Party to the Church of Christ and not meerly to the Ceremonies and Peculiar External Rites or Forms of this or that Particular Church and confirm those that are in it in advancing any in Knowledge and Piety in Faith and Practice we shall be reckon'd amongst the Builder or Edifiers of the Church And farther to explain what you mean by Edification you tell us there are these two things requir'd in it viz. Unity and Order 1. Unity And here you descant on the Benefits of Union and the Mischiefs of Schism in the words of Clemens Romanus and Mr. Baxter wherein we would not contradict you would you but once better prove that this Union must consist in those controverted things which you impose on us as the indispensible Condition of our Communion with you We are as desirous of Church-Union as You and are sensible how much it would conduce both to the Ornament Establishment and Enlargement of the Church but if it be your Tyrannical Impositions and your delivering up the Care of our Souls to such as have no Care of Ours nor of their Own that hath made and doth keep open the Breach between us let the World Judge who are the Schismaticks 2. As for Order you tell us not what you mean more than what we can pick out of Eph. 2.21 and Ch. 4.16 which Scriptures we own but can't learn from any thing that is Written there that our Dissent from such Impositions as yours and refusing to do what you would have us to do is a breach of Order If we stand not in those Ranks and Files of Military Order as once we stood if you see our Seats forsaken in your Churches and at your Communion-Tables you must blame your selves as the only Causes of this Disorder II. You next Enquire What we understand by Edification and whether we rightly judge how it is best promoted And here we are also concern'd to Enquire how rightly we are judg'd by you when you say That we take that to be Edifying that raises in us some Sensible Devotions that excites in us some Religious Affections such as Love Joy Fear or the like And these you suppose we have chiefly in view when we preferr the Service in our Meetimgs before that of the Churches The truth is that which is not proper to raise our Devotion in Religious Duties and to excite Holy Affections in us we cannot think to be very Edifying We know not how in this our compound state to exercise the Spiritual Graces of Faith Repentance Love Fear Humility Joy Delight in God c. but by the help of those Rational and Intellectual Faculties of Understanding Will and Affections which God hath given us If you understand the more Raptural Mysteries of Quietism a more Stoical or Seraphick way of contemplation without concerning those Grosser Spirits in so Divine an Exercise we will not envy your Attainment but for our parts we can't be satisfied that our Hearts are concern'd in Religious Duties as they ought to be unless we are sensible that they are so But to come to Particulars you instance in the two great ordinances of Praying and Preaching 1. You begin with the way of Praying us'd in our Meetings and here again you make your self a Judge of Evil Thoughts and that in such a Case wherein you are in Danger of Blaspheming the Holy Spirit of God For if it be by the Spirit of Supplication which makeh Intercession in the Saints that we are taught both what and how to Pray it concerns you to take heed how you approbiously oppose your Cant against our Common Experience of its assistance herein The Old and Often-repeated Harrangue by which you and others of your Way endeavour to exalt your prescribed Forms of Prayer and which hath been so often answered to silence doth but bewray your Inexperience of that way of Praying which the Holy Scriptures direct to and in which all the Saints in all Ages have found their greatest Reliefs How impertinently do you tell us That we are not to think that God is at all wrought upon by the variation of Phrases or the modulation of them No Sir we don't imagine that God is mov'd with Words or Tones or the most Eloquent or Artificial Composures of Matter or Expression whether Prescrib'dor or Unpremeditated Words are for our own sakes not for His yet we have great reason to think that the better the Affections are exercised and the Graces of the Spirit of God in the Heart the better is the Heart prepared and the better grounds it hath to hope to obtain Mercy from him And certainly that way of Praying which we find most conducible to this end we have reason to preferr Nor can any thing that we have ever yet heard incline us to your contrary Opinion That the Gift of Prayer which is in it self but a Common Gift as that of Preaching c. is may be and too often hath been abused by ill Men is what we grant But to censure all for ill Men that use it is unbecoming a Christian and to argue from the Abuse against the Use is too Weak and Absurd for a Man of your Figure and Learning And may we not easily retort as many and as great Abuses of your Way of Praying by Limited and Prescribed Forms had we a Mind to retaliate Those Motions and Efforts of Devotion which without due Caution or Distinction you impute to Natural Causes as you say a little Philosophy would teach us in such as use the Gift of Prayer are censured by you but one degree short of what the Spirit of God in our Saviour Christ was censured by those that attributed the Power by which he wrought his Miracles to a Diabolical Cause Matth. 12.24 c. which you will do well to read and spend some Second Thoughts upon But to moderare the matter you are pleased to grant that the Gift of Elocution which you seem to take for the whole of the
Company of Bigots at Jerusalem appear'd there as a Nazarite with all the Formalities the Law required in that Case Ch. 21.24 This he could do occasionally according to the Liberty he had in Christ which he was careful to preserve and not to be brought under the Power of these Things which is contrary to the Nature and free State of the Gospel And having this apostolical Precedent our Consciences are at ease in this Matter Yet IV. If there be any that have made these external Compliances renuente Conscientia or but with a doubting Conscience let them look to it and repent of their Sin for whatsoever is not of Faith is Sin But to pass this Censure on any without clear Evidence is far from that Charity which thinketh no Evil. Your first Section it but Preliminary to what you pretend to be more Argumentative Sect. 1. wherein you tell us that the Church of Christ being but One and that in the highest and strictest manner of Vnion that is possible for a Society of Men all the Question will be wherein this Vnion does consist or in what things it ought to be maintain'd To this you answer That all Christians ought to be united 1. In Faith 2. in Love 3. in outward Worship and Communion On the Two former you touch lightly because you perceive that the stress of the Question lies on the Third So that tho' We Dissenters be One with you in Faith and Love which whatever you think we have alwaies taken to be the main fundamental Principles of our Christianity and the strongest Nerves of our Christian Union and all that is as absolutely necessary requir'd of us 2 Tim. 1.13 Gal. 5.6 Philem. ver 5. Yet we must by the Rules of your Charity be all Damn'd if we dare to dissent from you in any of your outward Acts and Modes of Worship and Communion Here you run on a large and learned Harangue on the excellency and necessity of Church-Concord in the external Forms of Worship and Discipline as if a few variable unscriptural and confessedly indifferent Ceremonies were the only true Cement and Badge of Christian Union and without which 't is impossible as a visible Society to appear in the Eye of the World as One. And for this you think you very pertinently quote both Scriptures and the Fathers Now as to what you say as to the necessity of Union in Essentials we are ready to say with you and take Communion on in Externalls and Circumstantialls where it may be had without Sin to be on several Accounts as desirable as you can represent it to be But when you say that Faith and Love being invisible Principles are not capable of being a publick Badge of the Christian Profession And Argue from thence that 't is only Vniformity in the external Rites and Ceremonies of Worship that evidences the Oneness of Faith and Affection as if Faith and Love had no other way to express their Efficacy and Sincerity but this you do not only traduce those Divine Principles but shamefully expose the Church of which you are so very tender For should it be said that no one would ever believe the Members of the Church of England to be any of Christ's Disciples did they not see them so Zealous for the Ceremonies of their Church how little would this be for the Credit of their Christianity And indeed this is lamentably too true of very many not only of the common Members but of the Teachers and Leaders of the Church that have little else to distinguish them from Heathens or to perswade a belief of their Christianity but an empty Name and a blind Zeal for what they call the Church That the Church Universal is One and in some respects may be said to be one visible Society and Political Body we readily grant so that the Unity be made to consist only in what is Essential to it else we must inevitably cut the Catholick Church in Pieces according to the variety and differences of the external Rites and Communions of the many particular Churches of which the whole is constituted And when we have done so where shall we find that Oracle that shall infallibly determine and assure us which of all these Parts is that which we ought to own and to Communicate with as the Church of Christ in which alone Salvation is to be had Must you be the Oracle May not others claim it as well as you Or will you send us to Rome to be determin'd Yet this is that you so charitably direct us to and are so strenuously contending for If then the Rending of the Church be Schism let all the unprejudiced part of the World judge who are the Schismaticks You or We. We are ready to Communicate with you in all that is Essential to the Church of Christ and profess our selves to be so far One with you but because we dissent from you in some Circumstantials of your own devising which God hath no where requir'd of us and which are justly Offensive to the Consciences of very many of the Faithful yet which you make the indispensable Conditions of Communion with you therefore we must be cut off and cast out as no parts of the Catholick Church of Christ Is not this to cut the Church in Pieces and the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of a Schismatical Church The Catholick Church of Christ indeed is One therefore he that is duly admitted as a Member in any one true part or particular Congregation of this Church has a right of Communicating in all and he that is justly Excommunicated out of one is cut off from all because all are but the integrating Parts of one and the same Body But then they can be one only in those things which are essentially common to all and not in those peculiar Forms or accidental Differences which are one way or other become proper to 'em as particular Parts Will you cut off the Foot as no part of the Body because it differs in Form from the Hand Are you offended with your Nose because it is not in Figure like your Ear When you have dismember'd all the Dissimilar Parts what a comely useful uniform Trunk will you have left Yet this is what you are Pleading for Where then is your Charity Or your Policy You say You see not what just Cause there can be that they should be divided in Worship who are united in Faith And we say so too But why then have you thus divided us from you Whose Fault is it that we do not Worship God together but yours that will not suffer it but on such Terms as we cannot without Sin submit to and which you have devis'd and impos'd with a design to keep so many of us out of your Communion That the Church is a Regular Society we grant A Body fitly joyn'd together consisting of many Members of which all have not the same Office as you quote it from the Apostle Neither