several parts that none but a great stranger to the History of the Church can ever call in question Ans Bishop Gunning will give you no thanks for this It seems after all the anger we are much agreed I never denied Chappelâ— to a Church nor thought they must all meet at once If they all meet per vices at one Altar they are associated for presential Communion and not distant only and this is that I am for Make it but such a Church that meet at one Altar and that can know one another and are associated for such personal Communion in presence and though I could wish it neither too small nor too great it is of the Species which I plead for as of God There is certainly a Specifique difference between a Church that hath a Constitutive formal Governour who hath the whole Pastoral power and is associated for presential mutual help in faith worship and holy living and one that either hath but a half Pastor without the power of the Keyes or that is associated only for distant Communion and never see each other even for another sort of Communion Conformists hold that Bishops and Presbyters are distinct orders Therefore Churches differing in the very Order or Species of the Constitutive Governours and in the Triminus or end and the nature of the Communions are certainly of distinct Species and not only of distinct degrees in the same Species But such are our Parochial and Diocesan Churches Just such a Church as you here describe is it that I would have and yet if the Chappels also have Altars and there be more than one to the Church as long as they are under the same Bishop and Presbyters associate for Communion in presence it alters not the Species § 46. I thank you also for adding p. 28. And yet this distribution even in Creet was so uncommon in those Elder times that Epiphanius takes notice of it as an extraordinary thing at Alexandria and therfore it is probably supposed that there was no suâ—h thing in all the Cities in his time Ans 1. It s true of Creet which had an hundred Cities But your therefore makes me think you put Creet for Cyprus For there it was that Epiphanius was a Bishop 2. But you grant me the foundation of all my cause Let the Diocess or Parish or Church call it what you will be no bigger than that the same Bishop may performe the true Pastoral office to them in present Communion and not only by writs and delegates rule men that have no personal present Communion nor ever intend it as the end of their relation and I have my desire as to the Species of the lowest sort of Churches 1 Thes 5. 12. 13. Know them which labour among you and are over you in the Lord and admonish you But such are not those whom we never saw nor heard and never laboured among or admonished the twentieth or fortieth or hundredth Congregation in their Diocess and whom the people cannot know Heb. 13. 7. Remember then which have rule over you who have spoken to you the word of God whose faith follow considering the end of their conversation 17. Obey them that have the rule over you and submit your selves for they watch for your Souls as those that must give account But such are not they that the people never heard the word of God from nor knew their conversation nor the men And Bishop Taylor saith No man can give account of those that he knoweth not that is Pastors account Make Parishes true Churches and restore them Church discipline and we are satisfied § 47. Serm. p. 29. If we look over the ancient Cannons of the Church we shall find two things very plain in them 1. That the notion of a Church was the same with that of a Diocess or such a number of Christians as were under the inspection of a Bishop Ans 1. Very true and the Bishop was their ordinary Preacher and only pronounced the blessing c. Therefore till the Species was altered it was like a School whose Schollars lived in City and Country but were under a Bishop that Governed them personally in presence But after they were like many score or hundred Schools that had Teaching Ushers and one absent Governour to the most To Govern as a Schoolmaster in presence specifically differs from Governing as Princes or visitors by Laws or extraordinary inspection 2. I pray you forget not that by this measure if you hold to it you unchurch all our Parish Churches Every Church then had a Bishop no Parish now hath a Bishop proper to it self or at least not many Therefore no Parish by this rule is a Church Ecclesia est plebs Episcopo adunata You make no Church below a Diocess § 48. Serm. 2. That those Presbyters who rejected the authority of their Bishop or affected Seperate meetings where no fault could be found with the Doctrine of a Cburch were condemned of Schism Ans Good still They were not to set up altare contra altare but joyn with the Bishop in Governing the same Church in present Communion at least per vices But if a Bishop than had put down a hundred or a thousand Bishops and Churches about him and said you shall be all but one Church in another sort of Communion and I will be your only Bishop Christians then would have abhorred him Now we have hundreds of Altars locally separated from the Bishop 2. But yet if then the Doctrine of faith had been never so sound Christians would have separated 1. From unlawful worship specially Idolatry 2. And from wicked Bishops as the forementioned Epistle of Cyprian and the Carthage Council sheweth § 49. You Confess Martin and Theognostus separation from the Synods and Communion of the neighbour Bishops And if it were not lawful for neighbours to communicate with them I shall believe as Cyprian that the same reason would at least warrant the people to forsake them till you shew reason to the contrary And you confess the Joannites separation and only say that after they returned It s true But did they do well or ill before they returned not till gentleness and honouring Chrysostome reduced them and though Cyril Alex. called them Schismaticks and said it was fitter the Church Canons should be kept than such refractory Nonconformists gratified by restoring the honour of their ejected Pastor yet Atticus had more wit and honesty then to follow his Council or be moved by his threatning Our case hath ten times more to be said for it than the Joannites had who were not cast out but departed nor had any Impositions forced on them which they took to be many hainous sins Had you been impartial you had easily seen this But as Cyril and others accusation of the Joannites as separatists and schismaticks did not finally attain his ends against the Joannites no more shall yours against the more excusable In an Ale-house or Crowd of the debauched or ignorant
that the Gospel is not preached by Vs or whether it be or not that you are bound to preach it still and so much seems to be implied in your 7 th Question viz. That it is a sacriledge culpably to alienate an Ordained Minister vowed to the sacred Office And because this comes nearest to the matter in hand and seems very much to stick with you I shall desire you to resolve these Queries 1. Whether it be not in the power of those who give Orders in a Christian Church to limit and suspend the Exercise of the Ministerial Function without Sacriledge If not how could the Christian Church in its best and purest times pretend to reduce Bishops and Presbyters to a Lay-Communion of which you may read so often in St. Cyprian's Epistles Nay what Church is there to be named that doth not assume this power to it self without the least suspition of Sacriledge And it would be very strange that this Notion of Sacriledge should never be understood before 2. Whether Christian Magistrates may not justly restrain those Ministers from Preaching who after the experience of former Troubles do refuse to renounce those Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve 〈◊〉 again in the like Troubles 3. To what purpose any such Authority is either in Church or State if those who are legally silenced may go on to preach publickly in opposition to the established Laws only in supposition that they were wrongfully ejected This I am certain is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband A. D. 1644. p. 41. besides what you may find in my Sermon p. 51. only the Testimony of Dr. Gouge ought to be corrected thâ— p. 513 514. Their words are if a guiltless Person put out of his charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it what proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are always guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they also will be always ready to object against the Churches judgment that they are called of God and may not therefore give over the execution of their Ministry at the will of Man 4. Whether there be the same obligation now lying upon Ministers to preach the Gospel in a Nation where the Gospel is confessed to be truly preached when they are forbidden to do it by the Laws of the Land as there was upon the Apostles to preach it first to the World notwithstanding â—he prohibitions of men The disparity seems so obvious to me that I could hardly believe men of understanding would alledge the Apostles words to justifie their present practises had I not so often seen it done But that the old Non-conformists did truly understand the disparity of the case you may see it in 3 instances in the former Book which I shall refer you to But you ask one matterial Question in behalf of the People viz. Are none of our hearers more competent judges than their Accusers what profiteth their own souls And is this in your judgment a tolerable Plea for Separation then there can be no such thing as an unjustifiable or sinful separation since the people are left to be their own judges For where was any separation made but upon such a pretence And upon this ground the people may leave you to morrow and go to Doctor O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers and still plead that they are more competent judges than their Accusers what profiteth their own souls No one would think by such Questions as these that ever you had written so much against Separation and spoken so freely of the mischief of it Thus I have pickt out those Queries which come nearest to the matter of Separation and given a suffieient Answer to them But as to the other remaining concerning the constituent regent part of a National Church the One Rule mentioned by the Apostle and whether you or I have studied longer or to better purpose I have in civility passed them over as no more relating to our business than determining the Principle of Individuation is to the keeping of the sixth Commandment And I am resolved in debate of this nature not to be drawn off by any by-Queries from the main thing in Controversie I do not press you to any speedy Answer but I desire you rather to weigh and consider things impartially than to give too hasty a Reply I am neither fond of Controversie nor can I desert so just and clear a Cause as I take this against Separation to be from which I shall not be moved by the noise and censures of weak and injudicious people who I find as you formerly observed can least endure to be touched in this matter If you please at your leisure to return an Answer to this paper it shall be thankfully received by SIR Your faithful Friend and Servant EDWARD STILLINGFLEET My sudden removal into the Country upon the receipt of yours must excuse my sending this no sooner A Reply to Dr. Stillingfleet's Letter being the sum of our Controversie § 1. I Confess I was so well assured of the Divine obligations which lay on me to do these things which you judg my sin that my expectations from your return were very low But yet I thought it my duty to try whether you had more than I knew of to say for my Conviction before I ventured on a Defence But your refusal to convince and satisfie me increaseth my confidence that it is my great duty which you account my sin § 2. Did you not write to be understood Or must I only not understand you must I trouble the Reader by gathering all the passages where you expresly speak to me viz. As One of them and as going beyond the Independants and preaching unlawfully to them that unlawfully hear and as deeling more disingeniously and less fairly than the old Separatists and so almost from end to end § 3. Seeing you should have been very glad to have found an answer to your Sermon an Answer you shall have § 4. Seeing you will no further explain your great word separation I will answer it where I find it in your Sermon And if the Case must be no more intelligibly stated I must take it as you will do it § 5. To sum up all as far as I am able to understand you your Sermon containeth 1. The grounds supposed on which you build 2. Your Accusation of us on those grounds 3. The penalties which you justifie 4. And the cure which you desire I. As far as you are intelligible to me your supposed grounds are that God hath authorized the Magistrate 1. To choose what persons every man in his dominions shall entrust his soul to as the Pastor whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey 2. And also to choose
that by the same Rule is meant the Tradition and Custom of the Vniversal Church 10. And some that it is the Canons of the Bishops in General Councils and under them in National or Provincial Councils 11. And some tell us that the Rule of Christian concord is Obedience to the Bishops of all the World or Universal Church who are a College Governing not only divisim per partes in their several Precincts but unitedly as One Regent College ordinarily per literas formas and by General Councils when they sit 12. And some tell us that it is the Law or Will of the Civil Christian Magistrate which is this Rule As to these four last Rules we must put in our Exceptions As to the 9 th the Traditions and Customs then in use were Apostolical Institutions and so are coincident with some of the former But other Traditions and Customs we take not for this Rule And as to the tenth we give Councils though wrongfully called General their due honour as we do to inferiour Councils and every particular Pastor in his place but take not this for the Rule here mentioned And as to the 11th we know of no such Government in being And as to the 12th it was not then existent and therefore could not be that meant in the Text But we take our selves bound to obey Magistrates as we have elsewhere at large explained and professed In short either you think it is a Divine or a Humane Rule or Law which is here meant or both If a Divine we shall not differ from you of any thing unless it be of the meaning of it If a Humane either it is an act of true Power received from God or not If not you will grant us that it obligeth us not as this Rule in question If yea then we agree that we are to obey it So that all that will be useful to our Conviction will be 1. That you prove the Persons authorized to their Office and of our Magistrates there is no doubt 2. And that they have authority to make all the Canons and Laws which you call the Rule And without this your labour is all lost to us § 10. But which of all these it is that you take for the Rule meant in your Text we must conjecture 1. You well say p. 11. It was such a Rule which they very well knew which they had given them before Therefore it was none that was not then in being but to be made by Bishops afterward And p. 14. you seem to include the Canon made Acts 15. whatever the sense of this Text is we willingly also stand to that and to the Holy Ghosts decision that nothing be imposed but necessary things And p. 15. I find you say that the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing Separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his directions And this is all that I can find of your determination what is that Rule And if Peace be the Rule we all agree with you in declaiming against the violation of it But is there no more in your Application § 11. I remember it is said in the Life of Joh. Bugenhagius Pomeranus the Pastor of the Church in Wittenberge and the Presbyter that ordained the Bishops and Presbyters of Denmark and many other places how much John Frederick the Elector of Saxony was pleased to hear him open the Reasons why Magistrates have power to make Laws but not Pastors armatum 〈◊〉 potestatem politicam authoritate condendi leges non pugnantes cum Decalogo de his traditam se verissimum praeceptum necesse est obedire propter conscientiâ—n sed pastoribus expresse prohiberi condere proprias leges eum dicatur Neâ—o 〈◊〉 arguat in cibo in potu nec posse hanc libertatem ullius creaturae authoritate tolli But I had rather stretch my Obedience to the utmost consistent with Conscience and Obedience to God than speak for any needless Liberty § 12. It is certain that by the same Rule is not meant 1. Any Rule that tied Christians to subscribe or declare that there is nothing in our three Books Liturgy Ordination and Articles contrary to the Word of Godâ— For none of them were then extant nor are they 200 years old 2. Nor any Rule that tied them to any one humane Liturgy which all the Churches iâ— the Nation must agree in For there was none such 3. Nor was it any Rulâ— that imposed on them any dubious unnecessary Opinions Covenants or Practices nor in a word our Conformity or any like it This is easily proved 1. Because the Rule which they were all to wall by was somewhat then existent 2. It was a Divine Rule 3. It was thâ— which all Christians were to have concord in But experience telleth us that all Christians that is that consent to the Essentials of Christianity â—â—â—ver had nor can have their Concord in any of the fore-mentioned Conformity as I have proved in my Book of Concord § 13. We will go therefore no further than your Text for the Terms 〈◊〉 our Agreement and for our Defence against your Accusation Whatâ—â— you will prove to us by any such evidence as should convince a Man of reason 〈◊〉 impartiality to have been THE RVLE which the Apostle did here mean 〈◊〉 bid all that are Christians walk by we earnestly desire to agree thereto Anâ— we will joyn with you against any that refuse it It will be a way more coâ—gruous to your Function and cheaper to your Consciences to condescend 〈◊〉 these Terms and prove to us what this same Rule was than to tell the Magistrates that it is no sin not to endure us § 14. Pag. 16 17 18 19. you come to tell us what Separation it is noâ— which you speak of viz. not of the Separation or distinct Communion of 〈◊〉 Churches from each other c. Answ You know it 's like your self what 〈◊〉 mean by these words if you would have us know it I must crave yoâ— Answer to these Questions Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and distinct Communion the same thing 〈◊〉 divers Qu. 2. What distinction of Communion is it that you mean When there are 〈◊〉 many things which may distinguish 1. Communion in distinct places you take 〈◊〉 for Separation 2. Nor Commnion under distinct Presbyters or Bishops 3. Therefore I suppose neither under distinct Princes or Aristocracies in Cities as such 4. Nor under distinct Laws meerly as such of the same Prince 5. Nor distinct in allowed or indifferent accidents Why any of these should be called Separation I know not unless as the word doth signifie but Diversity or Distance Q. 3. Do you take Separation here in the same sence as before and after or Equivocally If Equivocally why did you not tell us what you here meant besides the difference of Subjects If univocally then Q. 4. Is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from
Four or Five and then say Vnanimously and this because they offer to Subscribe the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles And yet I suppose you know that they more Unanimously dissent from the Doctrinal Article in the Liturgy of Baptized Infants certain undoubted Salvation without Exception and some of them to the Doctrinal Damnation of all Condemned in Athanasius Creed And some of your selves as well as Mr. Humphrey could wish the Article against Free-will and that which Damneth all the Heathens and some others had been otherwise than they are § 40. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these that Communion is required Say you so 1. The Diocesans are little beholden to you if this be all Do you require no Communion with them 2. I think I shall shew you anon that you take your Parishes for no true Churches your self At least your chief Brethren do not who make them but Parts of a Church the Diocesan being the lowest proper Church 3. Are you sure that the Independents take your Parishes for true Churches I cannot tell But I know John Goodwin and Mr. Brown have Writ to the Contrary 4. And for my self how oft have I told you that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors but that is because I judge of their office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which depriveth them of an essential part of the Office of a Pastor of a true Church But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor Such Congregations I can joyn with as Chappels or Oratories But they are not Churches of the political organized from which we speak of as wanting an essential part § 41. Next you tell men what I said in print of our Conclusion that communion with you was lawful Ans This is true and when said we otherwise Dr. Manton Dr. Bates Dr. Jacomb Mr. Poole and others were there I told you before how far lawful § 42. Serm. p. 22. Who could have Imagined but they should have all joyned with us in what themselves judged to be lawful and in many Cases a duty But instead of this we have rather since that time found them more inclinable to courses of separation c. Ans If this be not true I take it not for sinless Since that time 1. Mr. Pool Mr. Humphery my self and others that took our selves to be no Paâ—â—ors to any particular Church have usually joyned in your assemblies and I usually keep to my Parish-Church 2. Since that time in a Treaty set on foot by the Lord-keeper Bridgman we agreed in terminis with Bishop Wilkins and Dr. Burton and Judge Hale drew up our Agreement into the form of an Act. 3. Since that time at your own motion we treated with honest Dr. Tillotson and you and the same men and more consented to the form and words of an agreeing Act and you both seemed to consent 4. Where you read my words you might have read the Reason why no more Communicated with you And it is not like a lover of Truth to dissemble them 1. I told you that even at the present new heats arising against Dissenters we thought it our duty till they were over to forbear a lawful thing which was like to occasion the sufferings of such as in that were not satisfied as we were Marriage is lawful But if it be not necessary one may forbear it if it would ruine another though the Bishop command it him 2. I told you that the Oxford Act of confinement came out when we were intending to come to your Churches and then had we been seen there in the City or Corporations we had been sent to Jayle but many in the Countries came to your Churches This is your Cathedrall Justice The Law is come to Church in London c. and you shall go to Jayle six Months And if we do not such as you tell the World that we are Separatists 3. I told you men cannot preach to others and hear you both at once Must we repeat these things as oft as you accuse us § 43. In the charge are joyned Dr. Owen and my self my error is p. 24. Serm. that to devise new Species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without Gods authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Ans A man would think that this doctrine should justifie it self and confute the Accuser 1. Will you own your Churches de Specie to be new and yet appeal to antiquity 2. Will you own them to be devised without Gods authority and yet to be preferred to those that he instituted 3. Will you own that yet they may in his name be imposed on the World 4. And will you own that for these dissenters may be called Schismaticks 5. And is not this a worse usurpation than to make new Ceremonies If you will plead for so much presumption profanation of Gods Name usurpation uncharitableness and Schism I will leave you to fight against the Light and not labour in vain in a needless confutation 2. But Sir you should have told your Reader the full truth 1. That I never denied but largely asserted the Magistrates power of the Sword over all persons and causes Ecclesiastical much less Christian Kingdoms or Cities de re 2. And that I maintained that Magistrates make officers to judge of the Circa sacra or undetermined accidents of Religion 3. And if you will equivocally call these Churches I quarrel not de nomine 4. Nor yet at the thing or name of the Association of many Churches for Concord 5. But I say in the Page cited by you that as humane forms should not be pretended falsly to be Divine so neither have they authority against those that are Divine to change them and destroy their priviledges Unless you will fight for man against God you must reverse this Accusation § 44. As to your case of the extent of the first Churches I have so much to say of it elsewhere if God will that I shall not here stay on so short a touch Only you put me to repeat If God make families and men make Cities do but confess the different efficients and usurp not a power to destroy the power instituted by God and we shall not much differ § 45. You greatly strengthen my Cause by the testimony of so well Read a man Serm. p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in
Richard Baxters ANSWER TO Dr STILLINGFLEET's CHARGE of SEPARATION Containing I. Some Queries necessary for the understanding of his Accusation II. A Reply to his Letter which denyeth a Solution III. An Answer to his Printed Sermon Humbly tendred I. To Himself II. To the Right Honourable the Lord Mayor and the Court of Aldermen III. To the Readers of his Accusation the Forum where we are Accused Acts 15. 28. It seemed good to the Holy Ghost and to us to lay upon you no greater burden then these necessary things Rom. 14. 1 17 18. Him that is weak in the Faith receive but not to doubtful Disputations For the Kingdom of God is not meat and drink but righteousness and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost For he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of men Phil. 3. 16. Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things 15. If in any thing ye be otherwise minded God shall reveal even this unto you LONDON Printed for Nevil Simmons at the Three Cocks at the West-end of S. Paul's and Thomas Simmons at the Prince's Arms in Ludgate-street MDCLXXX THE PREFACE Readers 1. IF you would be truly informed of the Case of the Nonconformists and the meaning of this Defence you must know 1. That the meer Nonconformists of this age take not up their Judgment in trust from any party of men and therefore take not themselves obliged to be for or against any thing because men were so that were called Nonconformist sheretofore As the Scripture is their Rule and objective Religion so they reverence the judgment of the Primitive Church above the judgment of any party And indeed are so far against Sects and Parties as such as that their judgment is that the Church will never be well restored to desireable Concord till our Vnion be Catholick upon the terms that Christ appointed and which all good Christians have agreed in and may agree in 2. That what the meer Nonconformists of this age desired for Concord and Reformation as to the old Liturgy and Conformity is best known by their common Proposals 1660 all the Ministers of London being by Mr. Calamy Mr. Ash and Dr. Reynolds invited to Sion-Colledg freely to give their judgments who offered nothing for Church-Government but Bishop Usher's Primitive form and nothing for Worship but the Reforming of the Liturgy and the free use of additional formes Their exceptions against passages in the Liturgy being not thought absolutely necessary to Communion And it must be remembred that they offered then 1. A Defence of those Exceptions 2. A Reformed Liturgy or Additions 3. A Petition for Peace and preventing Schism to the Bishops which they never answered to this day that we know of 3. You must know that the Change of the Liturgy on pretense of easing us and the Act of Vniformity have made Conformity now quite another thing than it was before and to us far more intollerable I am past doubt that Ri. Hooker Bishop Bilson Bi Usher and such others were they now alive would be Nonconformists yea I can prove it as well as I can prove that they were honest men and would hold to what they wrote 4. You must know that we had never leave to give our Reasons against the New Conformity nor allowed to be once heard speak for our selves before about two thousand Ministers were silenced when our Judicatures will hear a single Malefactor We have been silent about eighteen years while men have call'd to us What is it that you would have while they would not give us leave to tell them 5. And when the Press was somewhat open they spread it abroad that our silence now plainly shewed that we had nothing to say but kept up a Schism against our own Consciences 6. At last though my Friends had long told me that our Lives must be our best Defence and that our Accusers would but be inflamed by an Apology and could not endure to hear our Reasons I durst forbear no longer but yet ventured no farther than to write a bare Narrative of the Matter of our Nonconformity lest arguing should exasperate But that very naming of the things which we deny hath much displeased them that differ from us supposing that it implyeth an accusation of them which I renounced 7. The Reader then that will understand our Case must not look to find it here but be at the labour to read what is already written of it which we must not repeat as oft as any will write against us that is 1. In the said unanswered writings of 1661. 2. In the Kings eclaration concerning Ecclesiastical Affairs for which the London Ministers subscribed and printed a Thanksgiving 3. In my first Plea for Peace describing our Nonconformity 4. In the efence of it against Mr. Cheyny's Answer 5. In my second Plea for Peace describing our Judgment of Government and obedience and what our Nonconformity is not and divers other points 6. In my True and only way of Universal Concord on which the Churches must agree if ever 7. In my Moral Prognostication 8. In my Abridgment of Church-History of Bishops and Councils shewing what hath divided the Churches heretofore 8. You must know that I write not to justifie every man that is called a Nonconformist but to give an Answer to the publick Accusation of my self and a Reason of the Preaching of the meer Nonconformists 9. But that the fuller Justification of our Preaching is intended in another Treatise called Their Apology or Third Plea for Peace II. And as to the prosecution of the debate with this Reverend Doctor it is not likely that I shall trouble him with any Rejoinder if he Reply unless he will take another course and first explain our terms and state the question to be disputed Much less shall I contend with any substitute who shall avoid the way of Love and Reason which from the Doctor I may expect There is one sort of Disputants that are too strong for me Those that have a better Cause Truth will overcome Light will appear through narrow cranies Of these I shall be glad to be overcome I protest that to my knowledg I never managed a Dispute in which I trusted not to the Goodness of my Cause more than to wit or words or humane advantage But there are above twenty sorts of other Disputants too hard for me to overcome 1. Those that will Dispute before they agree of the sense of their terms or state the question and then quarrel for not being understood 2. Those that will not read or answer our fullest Defence already written but look I should still begin anew 3. Vniversallists that can prove me to be an Ass because I am an Animal 4. Equivocaters that can prove me a Separatist because I sit not at their feet or read not in their Book or with their Spectacles 5. A Pope that taketh it for a
that I craved your Answer 2. And do you not know that in the Bills of Mortality it appeareth that the Parishes within the Walls are but about the seventh part of the whole and the outer Parishes which are thus great are about six parts And in these Parishes it is not the tenth part in some and the sixth in most that can come within the Church to hear And it is pity that one half or two or three parts of such a City as London should be left like the Indians without any publick Teaching and Worship and such as you say so much for it § 8. You say The Separate Meetings are kept in the City Hackney Newington c. Ans 1. What 's that to me and all such other 2. I can tell that some City Churches are yet unbuilt and the Tabernacles will not hold the People as Christ-Church and others 3. And divers keep Meetings within the Walls where they found most peace for the reception of those without the Walls that cannot come into their own Churches 4. What 's done at Newington I know not But at Hackney I know of two Meetings where the Ministers so preach out of the time of Publick Worship that none may be hindred from going to it and deny not Communion with the Parish-Churches And they tell me that as the Incumbent Officiateth by another so the Parish is so great and the Preachers Voice so low that a great part cannot hear him 5. Why do you say they are separate Meetings when you know that you have cast them out The Preachers had rather Preach in your Temples and they cannot be suffered Preachers and People that are professed Nonconformists but in Opinion are by the Canon ipso facto Excommunicate § 9. As to what you say of the Reason of their Meetings I Answer 1. I think as far as I can Judge the most of my Hearers I think ten or twenty to one do also hear in the Parish Churches So that your Charge of Separation against them is but for hearing both And I believe it is so with many others 2. Every one that preferreth better doth not separate from all the rest Your Church alloweth any free Man to forsake and change his Bishop and Parish Priest as oft as he will so he will but 8. I believe that a Father must be honoured and having care of his Childrens Life and Soul he must command them necessary Food and Means for Body and Soul and they must obey him if the Law forbad it 9. I believe that murdering Souls privatively or positively is a sin as well as murdering Bodies as many undertaking and not performing Pastors will find 10. I believe that he that obeyeth not a Law which was made against Gods Law or without Authority given by him sinneth not against Authority 11. I think in such cases he that submitteth to the Penalty of a Penal Law doth enough 12. I conjecture that the multitude of Casuists Politick Writers and Lawyers who say that Because the Common Good is the End of Government and all Power is for Edification no Law obligeth which is against the Common Good or at least that is destructive of it are like to be near as knowing in such matter as the meanest of the Doctors Hearers and Readers 13. And I am past doubt that he that denieth these Principles will shortly have no cause to glory of his Wisdom And O what cause have we that are Teachers in stead of proving those intollerable that differ from us in such matters as our Conformity to consider that an Errour in us especially so Practical and momentous is far more dangerous than in the People If all my Neighbours mistake my Disease and the Remedy it may not hurt me but if my Physician mistake it it may be my death Bishop Vsher and many Protestants do except a Learned Papist much more than the unlearned from the hopes of Salvation § 12. I will readily Answer your Queries though you refuse to Answer mine To your first Those who rightfully give Orders must give such Orders as God hath instituted and may not limit or suspend contrary to his Institution or Laws As he that marrieth Persons may not except the Husbands Power of Government nor may unmarry them againe save for Adultery None may silence Ministers that forfeit not their Office On just cause to pull down Churches and alienate the Church Goods as some Bishops of old did for the Poor is no Sacriledge nor to silence an intollerable Teacher But to silence Ministers unjustly is another matter If men will cant over still Who shall be Judge We still repeat 1. Whoever is Judge he hath no Power to cast out faithful Ministers and if he mis-judge them it justifieth not his act And every man is the discerning Judge of his own Duty § 13. To your second Querie Christian Magistrates may justly preserve the publick Peace by all just means and may repress all rebellious Practices and Principles but if they should mis judge any principles to be such that are not and for not renouncing those should silence Ministers if they have fitter means than silencing to correct them silencing them when their Ministry is needful is a sin But seeing these words are significant of your mind for silencing us and the Reasons of it why would you not tell me what those Principles are which we refuse to renounce and so deserve silencing Either you lay the stress on the guiltiness of our Principles or on the Magistrates judging them so You cannot think that if he mis judge it will justifie his silencing men Else Valens Hunnierichus that cut out the Preachers Tongues those that silenced the Preachers in Germany on one side for not swearing for the Pope and on the other for not swearing for the Emperour c. all did well Seeing then you speak as an Accuser of us as guilty of refusing to renounce such Principles and subscribe your implied consent to our silencing for it O that you would be so charitable as to help our Conversion and tell us what those Principles are I have told the World at large my own and many other Principles of Government and Obedience in my second Plea for Peace I crave your discovery of my errours therein Yea I provoke also such as more fiercely accuse us as Plotters or cherishing Principles of Rebellion to name that Principle which I have not there renounced If all that 's there be not enough I know not what will be enough § 14. To your third I answer 1. It followeth not That Authority to silence justly is to no purpose unless all unjustly silencing must be obeyed The Apostles the old Bishops the most of the Churches have disobeyed such as did the Waldenses Bohemians German Protestants the French Belgians Remonstrants and Contraremonstrants c. You say Greatness of Parishes makes no difference What if the King turned all London into one Parish and so foâ—bid all Preaching and Publick
above all and Worship him according to his Word and Honour his Name and keep holy his day whoever forbid it And that we must Love our Neighbour as our selves and help to save him as we may 7. I believe that I must love my self and seek the saving of my Soul though the Law forbad me in matter of right I have told you what Bishop Bancroft saith of the old Nonconformists forming Churches and Discipline The Canon against Conventicles thence occasioned confuteth you I have heard old Nonconformists preach constantly publickly and privately against Law I was familiar with many of them I never knew one of the mind you mention Most of them did preach themselves that ever I heard of If Mr. Rathband had denied this it had been no Proof Mr. Ash that is one of them there and Mr. Slator both Preached at Bremicham long Mr. Pateman at Moseley c. Multitudes I could name And yet a man that knew them not is certain that all the Nonconformists of former times had contrary Doctrine I was in 1638. and 1639. accounted one of them though I used the Liturgie which most of them did not I knew them better than you did I have named many in my first Plea whose Practice proveth your great Error in that History where you say you are certain § 16. To your fourth Question An Obligation may be called the same 1. Quoad terminum 2. Quoad gradum 3. Quoad modum obligandi 4. Quoad realitatem 1. The Apostles had an obligation to assert Christs Resurrection as eye-witnesses and to record his Doctrine and Laws infallibly in Scripture and to many things proper to them which we have not But we are obliged to the work of our proper Office 2. The Apostles had greater obligations then we by more immediate Call and special gift of the Spirit and special Commission and Command when ours are lower but firmly binding us 3. The Apostles were obliged by Christs immediate mission and Commission and we but by his ordinary instituted means But we are as truly bound to our Duty as they to theirs 2. And our Duty is to preach the Gospel to those without and those within according to our Power and opportunity and to do the rest of our Office when we can And though we are called to this without supernatural Inspiration Vision or Miracle being called we are as truly obliged as Parents Husbands Princes are to their Duties It is not lawful to look back when we have put our hands to Christs Plow nor perfidiously to break our Ordination Vow nor to be negligent or treacherous Non-residents Pluralists or slothful nor to obey men more than God though we were not called immediately or by Miracle 3. If the Magistrate appoint 20000 or 1000 or one half a Parish to be excluded for want of Room and Teachers it 's ill supposed that the Gospel is truly and sufficiently preached to them to whom it is not preached at all And that it is Preached to others proveth it not unnecessary to them 4. He that only readeth the Gospel truly preacheth it But Souls have need of more Pastoral help than bare true preaching 5 Ignorant wicked men in England can no more be saved than Heathens and have need of convincing skilful serious Preaching as well as they Your wondring at our allegation of the Apostle's words and great confidence in so sad a Cause sets me almost above wondring at any thing that you say Timothy was not called immediately by Christ who had that dreadful Charge to preach in season and out of season The Universal Church long judged otherwise of this case than you do And not only Bishop Bilson but I think almost all Christian Writers Protestants and Papists herein follow the ancient Church against you The Nonconformists and others easily grant what I said before That no one Apostle might be silenced by man but deserving Ministers that do more hurt than good by their Ministry may be silenced by Christian Magistrates But not the Churches Edification oppugned and 2000 faithful men silenced for not sinning on pretence of a power to judge or execute § 17. My Question implieth 1. That every man is most concerned for his own Soul and hath a prior obligation to secure it which the King cannot dispense with 2. And That every man hath nearer helps to know what is good or hurtful to his Soul in doubtful Cases than the King that never saw him hath 3. And every man is like to love himself more than the King loveth him 4. And That the King can no more bind him to hurt or famish or endanger his Soul than his Health in Diet. But the King must give men all the helps that he can and set up and maintain sufficient publick Teachers and drive the ignorant and profane to hear and learn and promote Order and Concord and hinder Unpeaceableness and Disorder by just means But I have so fully declared the Magistrate's Work in my Book of Concord that I will not repeat it on this slight occasion Separations must be prevented by right means I had no Separatists in a great Congregation for fourteen years though many Sects strongly and often tempted them no not one Separate Meeting all that time and this without force What harm will it do me or them if my Hearers go from me as you say to Dr. O? Our whole Country where I lived almost kept Concord and kept out Separation without the Magistrates constraint Experience is not easily confuted Why then do you tell me of what I have written against Separation when you may see that I contradict none of this and when that writing with my other Endeavours served without the Rulers Sword I had three Justic◠always at hand that would have done for me what they could at any time I never desired one act of force from them I allowed Quakers and Anabaptists publick Disputes half a day together They never won one Man or Woman by it Mr. Tombes his great Parts and Interest with his Flock and Kindred could get but about twenty four or less than thirty Anabaptists at Bewdeley Almost all the rest of the Country was free save a few inconsiderable Quakers at Worcester and a small Village or two The like was then done without force in many other Counties § 18. I told you how necessary the resolving of the Questions which I sent you was to my Conviction And I will not provoke you by giving that Name to your denyal of an Answer to them which I think impartial Readers will give it I. Will other men believe that he doth well to deny me the definition of that National Church which he writeth of or to tell me whether he speak of a Lay or a Clergie Government who writes his wonder that I should say I know not what they mean by the National Church How can I know whom to obey or when I separate from the Form of Government if I know not what it
would be so bad in us but also to accuse us so publickly to Magistrates for not forbearing to preach the Gospel when we were solemnly devoted to it and pleading against the toleration of it when Non-toleration must be by Imprisonment Banishment or Death or such Disablement against such as believe they are bound to preach while they are able § 5. Yet you can tell that they are ill Men that reported you stir up Magistrates to Persecution If that much will prove it it 's like they will be emboldened to call you an ill Man too for such faults are so common that we may say as Seneca Quid ulcus leviter tangam omnes mali sumus Indeed they do not well that use that word Persecution when your words are but against Toleration and the Church of England ' s endeavour after Vniformity which are publickly known § 6. And no wonder if they are ill Men when you are but finding out a certain Foundation for a lasting Vnion which is impossibâ—e to be attained till Men are convinced of the evil and danger of the present Separation c. That is you are but proving our Union impossible for I have elsewhere proved that the Conviction which you speak of is morally impossible to become the terms of a common Union It is impossible that we should all be convinced that none of the Particulars imposed are sinful which I have named in my first Plea And secondly 't is as impossible that we should all be convinced that it is any more lawful for us to forsake our Ministry to which we were vowed in our Ordination than to break our Oath of Allegiance and deny our Duty to the King So that you do no worse than for Union to prove our Union impossible and who is it that makes it so § 7. And this Impossibility you infer from this Principle That it is lawful to separate on a pretence of greater Purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship Answ 1. Was there not this Agreement in the case of Cyprian and the Council who persuaded the People to separate from Martial and Basilides And is not Union possible with such as Cyprian and the Carthage Bishops 2. We that are accused by you do not say that we differ not from you in Doctrine absolutely viz. in the Doctrine about Diocesan Church-Forms or their imposing Power we never denied this difference But we say in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the Form of Government and imposed Abuses we agree And suppose that we agreed in such Doctrine and Worship with a Church that yet held only that the Pope is jure divino the Constitutive Vicarious Head of the Vniversal Church and would take none that confess it not for Christians were it a Sin to separate from that Church 3. Suppose that Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and you and make themselves our Pastors against our wills is it unlawful to separate from them though they agree with us in Doctrine and Worship And if the Churches and Councils have been in the right which for 700 yea 1000 years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent I need not tell you how far this will reach 4. What if a Church that you agree with in Doctrine and Worship will not receive you unless you will deliberately profess or subscribe an Untruth or covenant against some Duty or commit a known Sin is it intolerable for you rather to separate from them than to sin And must we have no Union till we can in all things think as you do § 8. I think you need not expect the Censures of the chief makers of our Divisions And as to the inferiour Sectaries if you are a Sacrifice it will be an unbloody one You well admonish us in the end not to complain too much when we are silenc'd impoverished and imprisoned The counsel is good But for the Dean of Pauls c. that is deservedly loved and honoured by us all whom you thus deal with and by those great Men whose esteem he deservedly more valueth while he liveth in this Plenty and Honour to call himself a Sacrifice if a few poor Men say He wrongeth them when he pleadeth against the Magistrates enduring them or against their Judgment that think they should be endured Doth not this seem to another greater tendency than for me only to say de facto I was laid in the Common Gaol and fain to make away my Goods and Library to save them from Distress But so much to your Epistle The Sermon followeth § 9. And what could a Man have desired more to end the main differences among us than the serious consideration of your Text in its very plain import and drift 1. That the Text speaketh for Unity and Concord is past question 2. And that it speaketh both to the Pastors and the Flocks 3. And that it speaketh to all Christians though of various degrees of Attainment And therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences 4. All the doubt is what is meant by the same Canon or Rule And there are these several Expositions pleaded for 1. That by the same Rule is meant only the General Concord idem velle nolle to agree and live in Peace and to mind the same things 2. That by the same Rule is meant the Essentials of Christianity received by all Christians which they should have concordantly practised notwithstanding other differences 3. That by the same Rule is meant the Doctrine which the Apostles had concordantly delivered to all the Churches 4. That it was the Churches Creed which is supposed then to be in use as the Symbol of Christians 5. That it is the Canonical Scriptures in the times that they were written and delivered to the Churches 6. That it is the Example of S. Paul before described or the matter of itâ— that is to hold fast what he had attained and press forwards towards the heavenly perfection by desire hope diligence and patience 7. Some take the one Rule to be the end as it is to be attained by the means that is the common good of the Church and furtherance of the Gospel and our Salvation Let all be done to edification 8. Some say that it is the great Duty of Love which is made the Rule for our undetermined actions or that the fundamental duties are made a Canon to the Superstructures as it seemeth to be meant Gal. 6. 15 16. And by Christ Go learn what that meaneth I will have mercy and not Sacrifice To tell you which and how many of these I take to be meant in the Text and why is none of the work which you call me to but to tell you that which-ever of these it is or if all these we fully consent All these Canons we must all walk by 9. But some say
one Church when it is upon unwarrantable cause or reasons If one Church unjustly renounce Communion with another whole Church as no true Church or as Heretical I think that it is done by a whole Church against a whole Church makes it worse But perhaps you mean that for two National Churches to have two Kings is not unlawful No doubt of that But to what purpose is it Or is it that two National Churches may have different Accidents of Worship or Discipline And so may two Diocesan or Parish-Churches in our Nation if the King please at least § 15. You add Which according to the Scripture Antiquity and Reason have a just Right and Power to govern and reform themselves Ans Have not all Diocesan Churches power to govern and reform themselves Government is of various species Only the King or summa Potestas Civilis hath Power to govern and reform by his Species of Government But every Bishop may govern and reform his Church as a Bishop as every Master may his Family as a Master and every Man himself as a Man It 's a strange Man Family or Church that hath not power to govern and reform it self though not Regal Power Though Kings have Power they have not God's Power and all Power that is Humane is not Regal § 16. Serm. By whole Churches I mean the Churches of such Nations which upon the decay of the Roman Empire resumed their Right of Government to themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common Ties and Rules of Order and Government Ans 1. And had not those as good right that were not under the Roman Empire as Abasia c. 2. Did the Churches under the Roman Power exercise their great diversity in Liturgies and other accidents of Worship without right Had not they a right to govern and reform themselves variously as they did 3. Christian Societies are of divers species Do you mean Christian Civil Societies Kingdoms free Cities c. or Churches Or do you take a Christian Kingdom and a Christian Church for the same as the Erastians do If so I suppose half the Conformists will be against you as well as I. At least you must confess that if de nomine a Christian Kingdom quasi tale may be called a Church it is equivocally and that there is a sort of Christian Churches which are of another Constitution Far were the Christian Bishops for 1300 years from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that a Church in the common sence was not constituted of another sort of Regent part that had the Power of the Keyes Two species of Governours make two species of the Societies if they are not subordinate but prime constitutive Parts But the Prince and the Pastor are two species well opened among many by Bishop Bilson of Subjection And verily if you Conformists be divided among your selves about the very Constitutive Rector of a Christian Church you differ more from each other than we do from the generality of you 4. And what be the common Tyes and Rules of Order which you mean Are these notifying Terms for a Definition 1. There are divine unalterable Rules of Order and Government and there are humane Rules about alterable Accidents 2. There are Rules made by Contract such as Grotius thinks Canons are and Rules made by Governours which are binding Commands or Laws 3. There are Rules made by Civil Governours to be enforced by the Sword and Rules made only by Ecclesiastical Pastors to be executed only by the Power of the Word and Keys Do you mean all these Or which of them 1. All Christian Churches are tied by the common Divine Rule and is not consent to that enough to make a Church 2. Churches of various Nations may be under one Humane Rule of Agreement or Contract 3. The same Princes may give divers Rules about Accidents to the Churches of one Kingdom and also the same Rule for some Accidents to divers Churches under them who differ in other great things And doth agreement in those Accidents do more to make them Oâ— Church than their difference in Integrals to make them many 4. Princes may do as the Roman Emperours long did leave the Bishops in Councils to make their own Rules by consent and make no common Imperial Rule for them Are they ever the less One Church 5. The Roman Empire and Councils both left the several Bishops to make Rules for Liturgies and other Accidents for their several Churches Were they therefore the less one National Church So that I am no more acquainted by your Words what you mean by a whole Church than if you had said nothing There is a whole Diocesâ—â— Church and a whole Parish Church as well as a whole National Church And what the Power is and what the Rule of Order must be whether the Laws of Princes or Prelates and whether about Essential or Integrals or Accidents and what Accidents whether all or many or few and which that must make a Church to be One whole Church you never tell us An Infidel Prince or a Heretick Prince may give the same Rule of Order to his Christian Subjects in a whole Kingdom Is he therefore the constitutive Church-Head Or will you say as your Mr. Rich. Hooker doth That if he be the Head of a Christian Church it is necessary that he be a Christian To tell us of Common Ties and Rules of Order and never tell us what those Ties and Rules are may serve your Ends but not my Edification § 17. But I remember your Irenicum learnedly maintaineth that God hath instituted no one Form of Church-Government as necessary And if so then not a National Church-Form And is it not a whole Church if it be without a Form which not God but Man is the Author of Then God made or instituted no such thing as a whole Church Then it is a humane Creature Then why may not Man make yet more Forms and multiply and make and unmake as he seeth cause and several Countries have several Forms And forma dat nomen esse And if God made not any whole Church we should be acquainted who they be that were not a Church that had Power to make the first Church-Form and who hath the Power ever since and how it is proved and how it cometh to be any great matter to separate from a Church-Form which God never made and whether humane Church-Forms be not essential and constitutive Causes of the Churches and whether every commanded Oath Subscription Declaration Office or Ceremony be an essential part of this Church-Form And there be as many Church-Forms and Species as there be Orders Liturgies and Ceremonies And all these Differences in the same Kingdom constitute so many Schisms and Separations § 18. Do you take all the Christians in the Turkish Empire to be one National Church or not If not then one Head
or Humane Law is not necessary to the being or Government of a Church nor is it necessary that it be National And do you think that the Greek Churches have not Power to govern and reform themselves though they be not a National Church Why did Paul write to Corinth as Clemens also did and to the Galatians c. and John to Ephesus and the other six Rev. 2 3. to reform themselves if they had not Power to do it But if all the Christians under the Turk be one National Church then it is either because they have one Civil Head or one Ecclesiastical Head Not the latter for they have none such though the Bishops of Constantinople have some Primacy by their old Canons and Customs Not the former for an Infidel cannot be an essential part of a Christian Church as a constitutive Head is § 19. And the Churches in the Roman Empire before Constantine were true Churches of Christ's Institution and they had power to govern and reform themselves and yet they had no humane Constitutive Head Regal or Sacerdotal though they had a Civil Heathen Governour which was an extrinsick accidental Head It is so contrary to all Sence and Religion that either a Man as a Man or a Family or a Church as such should have no power to govern and reform it self that I must needs judg that while you speak confusedly you meant only a Regal or Supreme Civil Power which yet is totâ specie distinct from that which is properly Ecclesiastical § 20. Serm. p. 17. And so the several Churches of the Lydian or Proconsular Asia if they had been united in one Kingdom and governed by the same Authority under the same Rules might have been truly called the Lydian Church Answ 1. And is the Controversy de nomine Whether they might be called the Lydian Church when we expected a satisfactory explication de re No doubt but a Church is so equivocal a word that many sort of Assemblies or Societies may be so called I have told you of divers Sences in which we are called a Church National first Plea pag. 251 c. Either a Christian Kingdom or else the Churches of a Heathen or a Christian King as associated by agreement may be called a National Church 2. What if they be united in one Kingdom of a Heathen Mahometan or Arrian King and governed by his Regal Authority under the same Rules which he sets them Is this it that you mean in your Description A King as such is not an Ecclesiastick Person and therefore is not an essential part of a Church unless as it is equivocally so called And is it his Civil Laws for Church-Government that you mean or the Clergies Canons or God's Laws The Greeks under the Turk are under one Prince and governed by the same Civil Authority and Laws and also are under one Patriarch and by the Princes toleration are governed by the Ecclesiastick Authority and Laws of another Species If you confound these two Species or tell us not which you mean in your Definition it tendeth not to Edification 3. And what if they be under divers Kings as the Bulgarians and Greeks were and yet ruled by one Ecclesiastick Authority and Law why may not they also be called One Church as the Moscovites are now called part of the Greek Church 4. And why might it not be called the Lydian Church while it was a part of the Empire as the African and other Countries were But what is all this de nomine to the Controversy All grant that the Civil Power must be obeyed in their place and the Church-power in theirs 5. But here you grant that they are several Churches before their Union in one Kingdom And I suppose they were Churches 1. of another species than the National described by you 2. and were of Divine Institution 3. and continue so after their Union in one Kingdom 4. and have power to govern and reform themselves still though not Regal power § 21. Serm. Just as several Families united make one Kingdom which at first had a distinct and independent power but it would make strange confusion in the World to reduce Kingdoms back again to Families because at first they were made up of them Answ And are they not several Families still and have they not still a distinct Family-power to govern and reform themselves tho not a Regal Power Doth making a City or Kingdom dissolve Families You cannot mean it What mean you then by reducing these Kingdoms back to Families when they are Families still Had you said that dissolving Kingdoms or Cities and reducing them to be only Families is confusion it 's undeniable But still as Families in a Kingdom retain Family-power so particular Churches in a Kingdom retain the Church-power which God by his Institution gave them And this is that we desire § 22. Serm. Thus National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship Ans 1. All Christians are under the same Divine Laws and Rules 2. Some Princes make no Church-Laws to Christians but their Civil Laws for the common Peace And some make various Laws for various sorts of Christians under them § 23. Serm. For the true Notion of a Church is no more than a Society of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion Ans 1. There be many true Notions of such an equivocal word as a Church is 2. The Generical Notion sure is not enough for the definition of each species There must be more The Universal Church is a Society of Men so united and so may the Churches of divers Kingdoms and so is a Christian Kingdom as such and so is a Provincial Church and a Diocesan Church and a particular Parochial Church yet all these are not of the same species for they have different terminos in specie 3. This is a very defective Definition where 1. Men are made the qualified Subject when it should have been Christians 2. The two constitutive essential Relations of Pastor and Flock are not mentioned as if a Kingdom were defined without the mention of King and Subjects 3. They are said to be united in general without telling us what uniting is meant whether only by force command or consent whereas most take even the Mode of Investiture Baptism as well as Consent to be necessary ad esse as to the Visible Church 4. It is said they are united for Order and Government as if these were but the Terminus and so may those by agreement de futuro that yet have no Government whereas the Government is the constitutive Form 5. This Definition leaving out the specifick Form and Terminus maketh an Army a Navy a Ship a company of Christian Merchants or Corporation c. to be a Church For all these may be Societies of Men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the
personal presential Communion and yet they meet not all at once but some one day and some another and some not at all which is a fault in exercitio but overthroweth not the being of the Church while it is personal present Communion which they associate for and profess and that states the Church-relation And they meet not all in one place but some in the Bishop of Ely's Chappel and it is pity but you had many more and yet Chappels of Ease consist with some Obligations on the whole Parish ordinarily to have per vices sometime personal Communion in the parish-Parish-Church If you would have told us plainly that Parish-Churches are no Churches or that God never ordained such single Churches as are associated for personal Communion in Presence in Doctrine VVorship and Conversation which have their proper Pastors we should have known what to say to you But if you deny not such which we undertake fully to prove plainly confess their Constitution VVorth and Privileges and we shall readily next debate the Case with you how far Men may associate these into larger Churches of another species But still we say that as Families cease not to be Families when they are combined into a Village or City no more do particular Churches lose their Constitution or Administration by being associated into any lawful larger Churches § 25. Serm. And if there be one Catholick Church consisting of multitudes of particular Churches consenting in one Faith then why may there not be one National Church from Consent in the same Articles c. Ans 1. I pray confess first that your National doth consist of a multitude of such particular Churches of God's Institution and cannot destroy them or their Power and Privileges Secondly And once tell us what you mean by a National Church whether Regal or Sacerdotal If you mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it If you mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as Equals we deny it not If you mean that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Sacerdotal Head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical we must have further satisfaction about this First whether it be of Divine or of Humane Institution Secondly whether if humane its Power be from the Prince or from the Consent of the particular Churches Thirdly what it is empowered to do 1. Not to make necessary Laws for the Churches of the same sort with Christ's already made 2. Not to cross any of his Laws 3. Not to destroy any Privilege of the particular Churches instituted by Christ 4. But if it be only to determine of such Circumstances as the Christian Prince may determine of we shall obey them as his Officers And now to your Why not I answer Man is not God God made the Form of the Vniversal Church of which the particular are parts whose Form also is of his making And if God hath made National Regent Churches as distinct from Christian Kingdoms and Commonwealths we will obey them if not we must know what Men made them and by what authority and whether God authorized them thereto if not your Why not is answered § 26. Serm. p. 18. Nay if it be mutual Consent and Agreement which makes a Church then why may not National Societies agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregation Ans 1. Is it only de nomine or de re that you ask If de nomine we grant you that a Parliament an Army may be truly called Ecclesia if de re we grant you that it is truly a Church of another kind 2. Mutual Consent makes a Church but God's Consent or Institution must go first to warrant that Consent and make it a Church which he will own Else mutual Consent may make it but Jeroboam's Church or a false and sinful Policy Prove if you can that God hath authorized Men to make as many new Church-Species Policies or Forms as they please or any against or above or equal to those of his Institution besides Magistracy § 27. Serm. p. 19. Why many of these Cities united under one Civil Government and the same Rules of Religion should not be called one National Church I cannot understand which makes me wonder at those who say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Sacrileg Desert p. 35. Answ 1. Admiratio est ignorantis I am as ignorant of you as you are of 〈◊〉 therefore may answer wondering with wondering 1. That such a Man should not know the reason when I so plainly and distinctly wrote it down 2. And that while you wonder you should not vouchsafe to give me the least means of Satisfaction For I suppose few will think that you do so much as attempt it here 3. You make it still as if the Controversie were de nomine what it may be called when I only spake de re and bid you call it what you will if you will but tell us your meaning 4. Yea in my Plea sect 4 5. and in the Addition I fully shewed what we grant de re de nomine and what we deny and what the state of our Controversie is and do you think to satisfie us after all this with Wondering that we understand not what you mean § 28. Serm. In short we mean that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship Answ And will not they that know not your Heart any otherwise than by such Words deride us if we should pretend by these Words to be ever the nearer understanding your Resolution of the Controversie 1. The essential constitutive Parts of a political Society are the Pars regeâ—s pars subdita as is aforesaid And here is no mention of the Regent part at all can any Man tell by this whether it be the King or a Clergy Head that you take to be the Constitutive Head 2. Laws and Rules are part of the Administration and our question is of the Constitution Is this then any satisfying Definition 3. The Papists by this Definition are the national Church They are a Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship viz. Papâ—l If you say They are not all the Nation I answer 1. nor doth your Definition require it 2. You are not all If you say that they are not the major part I answer 1. Whether you are I know not 2. In Ireland they are and so are there the National Church by your Definition If you say that you mean the Laws of Lawful Governours I answer 1. The Papists take the Pope for their lawful Governour 2. If a Usurper get Possession as K. Stephen and many others is the National Church then dead or null 3. There is
no mention of lawful in your Definitions 4. But though you will not tell us whether you mean Divine or Humane Laws and Rules yet I may confidently conjecture that it is Humane you mean for else 1. I am of the same National Church that you are yea if I prove that I am more conformable to God's Laws than you and such as you I shall prove that it will be a harder question whether you are of the Church of Eng. than whether I am 2. And you might know that such a Church we no more deny than you do at least 3. But then it can be but sincere not perfect Obedience to God's Laws and Rules which must prove one to be of this Church or else no Man is of it And then you must shew us whether a mistake in as small a matter as Meat and Drink or a Ceremony or Liturgick Form or Diocesan order do cut one off from that Church If yea than how much more would such Conformity to sin do it which we fear But supposing that you mean Humane Laws 5. Why may not Divine Laws make a Church If Humane Laws were necessary ad bene esse the Christians that I have read and converst with think that they are not necessary to the Being of a Church in sensu famosiore why then should they be in the Definition and only they 6. But the difficulty recurreth as to Humane Laws which of them are necessary to the Being of the Church For your Definition distinguished not The King hath great and excellent Laws which we all conform to Doth not our Conformity to these seem to prove us of the National Church though we conform not to your Formalities and Oaths and Ceremonies Imperfect Obedience serveth to continue men Subjects to the King It is not every Drunkeness or Oath or Fornication much less the miss of a Complement or Ceremony that makes a Man a Rebel or an Outlaw Why then should the refusal of a Prelates Subscription or Formality unchurch a sound and honest Christian 7. And if the humane Laws and Rules which you mention what ever you mean by them be subordinate to God's Laws and so be honest good and obligatory why should they cut off those from the Church which Christ's Laws cut not off yea which Christ receiveth and commandeth us to receive Receive him for God receiveth him and receive him as Christ receiveth us notwithstanding our Infirmities were good reasonings in St. Paul's Judgment which I prefer before any Bishops that I know 8. And a Man of less Acquaintance or Wit than you cannot be ignorant what abundance of Differences there are among your selves I have named you no small number in my â—d Plea some of you are hot against that which is called Arminianism and some hot for it some are for Bishops and Presbyters being of one Order and some of divers all are not of the mind of the Bishop of Hereford that wrote Naked Truth some even Bishops think that the damnatory part of Athanasius's Creed is not approved by Conformity others think that it is all to be approved A multitude such differences there are among your selves And why should not this as much unchurch some of you if it be being under the same Laws that maketh you one Church as the forbearing of a Declaration of Assent and Consent or of a Surplice c. 9. Especially tell us whether the Conformist's difference about the Constitutive Regent Part of the Church of England some being for one species and some for another do not plainly make them to be of two distinct Churches of England and further different from each other than we are from any part We justly say the Papists who are for two species of Soveraigns some for the Pope and some â—â—r a general Council are plainly of two Churches for the regent part is essential And I am sure that one part of the most Eminent Disputers for the Church of England and Conformity say that the King is the Extraneous Civil Governour but the Bishops are the Constitutive Essential Internal Governours of the Church as a Church and that if the Bishops command the use of one Translation Version Metre Liturgie and the King another we are to obey the Bishops and not the King And that the efficient cause of a National Church is the Bishops Agreement among themselves to associate into such a Church And others say that it is the King and his Laws that are the efficient of such a Church and are to be obeyed in matter of the Circumstances of Worship c. before the Bishops Can you prove that this difference between the Conformists about the very Constitutive Regent Power is not greater than Mens differences about a Ceremony or Form and doth not more to make them to be of two Churches 10. If all this confused stir be but about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of Divine Command And if you know it not or dissemble it after I have said so much of it in the first Plea and elsewhere I cannot help that viz. if you will talk publickly against what you know or know not when told because you will not know But I have there largly told you what the Power of Princes about Church matters is which if you will not read I will not repeat 11. Your Words Laws and Rules would induce one to think that you joyned the Kings Laws and the Bishop's Canons together in your meaning as the bond of Uâ—ity If so is it two sorts of Governours by the Swoâ—d and by the Word Magistrates and Pastors which you take for the constitutive regent parts of the Church If so then either in Cooâ—dination and Coalâ—tion or in Subordination The first cannot be that the two Species in Coalition should make one Head unless both were in the Kings as Persona Mixta both Lay and Clergie as some affirm him to be like Melchizâ—deck But this both King and Clergie disown Nor can the second be because a subordinate Power is not essential to the whole body politick but only the supreme And the Magistracy Ministry are coordinate Species both depending immediately on God and Subordinate Mutually only Secundum quid Nor is the Legislative Power in England any other than one which is in the King and Parliament conjunct The Bishops Canons are not Laws Ejusdem Speciei till the King and Parliament make them such If this be your Judgment there are I think but few Conformists of your mind 12. I must Conjecture therefore by your words That the Laws and Rules which you define the Church by are the Laws of the King and Parliament and that it is the Civil Christian Sovereign that you take for the Constitutive Head of that National Church which you plead for or else I know not what to Conjecture And if this be your Meaning I add to what is said 1. Erastians have hitherto been distasted by the Bishops and I
doubt they will by this take you for somewhat worse 2. What doth your National Church differ from a Christian Kingdom which we deny not 3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church besides that which is Constituted by the Christian Magistrate as Head 1. All the Christian World as far as I can learn by History no considerable part excepted have been in all Ages and to this Day are of another mind And who then is the great Nonconformist and Separatist You or I if this be your mind 2. The Magistracy and Pastoral Office are of different Species Therefore the Churches Constituted by their Regency are of different Species 3. Constantines words have hitherto been commonly received That He and so Christian Kings was Bishop without the Church and the proper Bishop within that is That he was the Governour of the Church by the Sword as the King is of all Scholars Physitians Families c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys as the King is not a School-Master Physitian or the formal Specifying Governour of School Colledge Family as such Bishop Bilson of Subjection most clearly openeth the difference and I think Christians commonly agree to it between the Office of Governing by the Sword and by the Word even about the Church it self 4. Christ settled immediately the Pastoral Office and did not leave it to Princes to make it And He settled Churches under the Pastors when there were no Christian Princes And when the Emperours became Christians they never took themselves to be the intrinsick Constitutive Rectors of the Churches but Accidental Heads as is aforesaid And all the Councils and their Canons fully shew that the Bishops were still of this mind And our greatest Defenders of the Power of Princes Bilson Andrews Buckâ—ridge Spalatensis c. were of the same mind and ascribe to them no more 5. Else Heathen and Infidel Princes might be Essential to the Church in the Gospel-Notion For they are the Governours of it by the Sword and may possibly by the Counsel of Christians make them as good Laws as many Christian Princes do Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws But I Labour in vain in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species for I suppose you cannot deny it and if you do few others will I suppose it is only the National Form which you take to be Constituted by a Lay-Head But few Christians will deny That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church is of Divine Institution and that Men have not power to destroy that Form or change the Office there Instituted by the Holy Ghost Though the Forms of Assâ—ciated Churches Diocesan Metropolitan Provincial Patriarchal are judged by very many to be of Humane Invention And what Man may make Man on good Reason may unmake or alter But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned I shall Grant you that a National Church is also of Divine Command if you mean but a Christian Kingdom But when one Form is Denominated from the Pastoral Office related to the Flock and the other from the Magistrates Office What hath a Man that can understand the State of the Controversy to do here but to shew what is the Pastoral Office towards the Church and what is the Magistrates For sure they are not the same And yet because that it is the Pastoral Form which the word Church denoteth in the strict and usual Christian Sense Our Sovereignes in England to avoid the Papists Exceptions have forsaken the Title of Head of the Church lest they should seem to claim a Constitutive Headship of a Church strictly taken and use only the Term Governour Even as Christ is said by St. Paul Eph. 1. to be Head over all things To the Church Over and To much differ And I yet see not why on the same Reason that we call a Christian Kingdom or Republick a National Church we may not 〈◊〉 call Loâ—don York c. a City-Church as Headed by the Mayor as the Christian Magistrate and so talk of Provincial Consular and Proconsular Churches Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical Churches and make all the Controversies which Church-Form is best as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is best And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations which I think yet most of them disclaim do this way quite exceed them in Popularity and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches even National including the particulars For I suppose they will not say that Democratical Civil Government is unlawful And whereas Cyprian saith Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia you will say Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is there is the Church But I trow the Bishop of London believeth that there is another sort of London-Church-Form besides my Lord Mayors Relation to them But what abundance of Church-Forms Supream and Subordinate may diversity of Magistracy make § 29. Sermon p. 19. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion i. e. those which are necessary for Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Answ 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to speak of I suppose it is not for want of Charity nor Concern that you intend it not and therefore suppose that somebody else will do it at last I have heard of some above your order that could better spare the Nonconforming Ministers than the People and said plainly that they increased the Impositions because they could do better without us than with us And some have said If this will not cast them out more shall do it I take it for granted that this pretermitted part of your Work is indeed the All that you have to do in the Works of Accusing and Afflicting the Nonconformists and till this be done the rest of your Accusations will confute themselves and I doubt not but it will be attempted and if it be truly and satisfactory I will give you thanks 2. Your Term of Lay-Communion remembreth me that if as you seem you Essentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler and his Laws viz. the King and the Laws made by him for Religious Government the People that you accuse are no Separatists though they Separate from the Diocesanes because they hold this Lay-Communion that is though they are not perfectly Obedient they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour and so Members of the Kingdom which is the National-Church 3. And as to your Lay-Communion here spoken of So far as it is Lawful where you have Preach'd or Written for it once I think I have done it many times I shall be far from Contradicting you in that § 30. Sermon p. 20. I will not say there
of the Sabbath c. and others against these If not Is not difference in such Doctrines as great a difference as using and not useing some of your Liturgick Forms and Ceremonies IV. Are all different modes of Worship enough to make our Party Separatists Then the French and Dutch Churches are Separatists and either the Cathedrals or the Parish-Churches as to their Vestments Organs Chore mode of Singing c. And the allowed private Baptismes and Communion with the sick are Separations V. Doth every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship make men Separatists If so then when ever a Conformist disobediently shortneth his Common-Prayer or leaveth off his Surplice or giveth the Sacrament to one that kneeleth not or receiveth one of another Parish to Communion c. he is a separatist Yea no man then is not a Separatist sometimes VI. If the Diocesane be the lowest political Church and a Parish but a part of a Church as they hold that take a Bishop to be a Constitutive part how is he said to separate from the Church that owneth his Diocesane and the Diocess what ever place in that Diocess he meet in seeing he separateth not from the Kingdom that stayeth in it and owneth the King though in some acts he disobey Nor doth every Boy that is faulty separate from the School VII Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth you to be a true Church and your communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshiping assemblies as unlawful to be Communicated with when it is not so If the former then Condemning you as no Church is a diminution or no aggravation of separation and the Local presence of an Infidel or a Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of your friends If the latter which is certain then if I can prove the Assemblies lawful which you condemne you are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them and declare such Communion to be unlawful I Communicate with your Assemblies and you utterly shun refuse and condemn Communion with ours which then is the Separatist if I prove ours to be as good as yours VIII Many English Doctors say Rome is a true Church as a Knave or Thief is a true man and we separated not from It but they cast Us out for doing our duty and not sinning as they do I say not as they for as the Pope claimeth the Headship of the Church Universally that form of Policy is not of God and we separate from that essencial form of their pretended Church But ad hominem if the Diocesane also be a true Church and we cast out of it for not sinning are We separatists or are our Ejectors such IX I have shewed you that the Canons Excommunicate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it Separation to be so Excommunicated and who is the Schismatick here And what shall be thought of such Church-men as will first ipso facto Excommunicate us for our duty and then as you do call us Separatists Would you have Excommunicate Men Communicate with you I and many do so because you shall be the Executioners of your own sentence and not I But with what face can men cast Men out by Canon ipso facto and then revile them for not coming in You can mean no other in common sense but that we are Schismaticks or separatists because we are not of the Conformist's judgment And that is not in our power And you differ more in judgment in greater matters from each other and yet call it not Schisme or Separation Yea you differ about the very essential form of your National Church one part taking it to be the Kings supremacy and another to be the Bishops or Clergy's Power And therefore you cannot be truly of one National Church that are not for one essential Form X. If men be wrongfully Excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-Communion I have else where cited you Canons enow that say the contrary and that Clave Errante the excommunication huâ—teth none but the Excommunicator And I have Cited Bishop Tailor 's Full Consent Must we not then Meet and Worship as we can when you wrongfully Excommunicate us XI Are not the Laity by your Canon forbidden to Receive the Sacrament in another Parish or any other to receive them if they dare not Receive it from a Non-Preaching Minister at Home And if the People judge that he that is unable or unwilling to Preach or that is a Heretick or that liveth in such heinous Sins or Preacheth Malignantly as to do more Harm than Good may not lawfully be owned by them for Christ's Ministers nor their Souls be Committed to their Pastoral Trust Must they therefore be without a Pastors Care or all Publick Worship and Communion and be Condemned for being Wronged XII Were all those Councils Separatists that Decreed That none shall hear Mass from a Fornicating Priest And Were the Canons called the Apostles and the Greek-Church that used them for Separation that said Episcopus ignorantiâ aut malo animo opplotus non est Episcopus sed falsus Episcopus non a Dee sed ab hominibus promotus Was Guildas a Separatist that told the Brittish Wicked Priests That they were not Christ's Ministers but Traitours and that he was not Eximius Christianus that would call them Priests or Ministers of Christ Were Cyprian and all the Carthage-Council Separatists that wrote the Epistle about Martial and Basilides which I Translated and told the People It was their Duty to Separate from Peccatore Praeposito a Scandalous Prelate and that the Chief Power was in them to Choose the Worthy or Refuse the Unworthy and that they were guilty of Sin if they joyned with such Sinners Who made You a more Reverend and Credible Judge of Separation than Cyprian and this Council At least Who will think that you may Judge them Separatists or guilty of Schism XIII Are not the Laity by your Canon to be denied the Sacrament if they be not willing of your Episcopal Confirmation And when Imposition of Hands is made the Signe by which Confirming or Assuring Grace is conveyed and some Bishops assigne no less to it they fear lest it be made a Sacrament Be their Doubts just or not they cannot overcome them And Must they therefore Live without Sacramental Communion By what Law XIV Are not the Laity that dare not Receive the Sacrament Kneeling for the Reasons else-where mentioned to be denied the Sacrament by your Rule And though herein they fear Sin more than they have cause Must they that cannot Change their own Judgments live all their Dayes without the Sacrament When as General Councils Decreed That none should adore Kneeling on any Lord's Day and the Church for a
Thousand Years practised accordingly Are all Separatists that dare not do that in such an Instant which they judge to be flat Sin nor yet did cast off Sacramental Communion XV. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptised without such Use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such Use of Entituling and Covenanting â—od-Fathers which on the Reasons largely given by me they take to be no small Sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptise them Are they bound to Sin against their Consciences or to leave their Children Unbaptised or Prefer such pastors as Refuse them XVI Is it Separation for men to Refuse Pastors that are Usurpers and have no true Power over them Sure it is not to Refuse an usurper of the Kingly Power and Why then of the Church-Power Which of the Bishops thought it any Sin in the Dayes of Usurpation to forsake their parish-Parish-Churches And in my Abridgment of Church-History I have cited many Canons which prove it the Common Judgment of the Church for One Thousand Years or near That he was no Bishop that was not Chosen by the Clergy and the people or came in without the Peoples Consent And if you will Read a late Treatise of Father Paul Servita of Venice a very Venerable Author you will see this at large Confirmed And If this be true Is it Schism to take such for none of our Pastors And Patrons choose Pastors for the peoples Souls who too often care not for their own Yea though they believe not that Man hath an Immortal Soul their Power of Electing those that Man must take for the Guides of their Souls is nevertheless for their Infidelity What Law of God bindeth all Men to stand to their Choice How many Hundred Congregations have Incumbents whom the People never consented to but take them for their Hinderers and Burden XVII Dispositio materiae necessaria est ad Receptionem formae non ex quovis ligno fit Mercurius If a Person be uncapable of the Ministerial Office it is no Sin to Judge him no Minister Those are Uncapable 1. Who have not tolerable Ministerial Knowledge and Utterance 2. Who are Hereticks 3. Who malignantly Oppose serious Religion as Hypocrisie or a needless Thing 4. Who by their wicked lives do more Hurt than they do Good From such St. Paul bids Men Turn away that have a Form of Godliness but deny the Power Is it Schism to Obey such Commands And how great a Number of such Cases there are I need not tell the People XVIII I am loth to displease you and I write not to Accuse You or other Conformists But as Paul was constrained by Accusers to speak sharply of them and like a Fool though not Foolishly of himself So you constrein us to say that in our own Defence which will exasperate you and I doubt you cannot easily bear And God saith Thou shalt not Hate thy Brother in thy Heart Thou shalt in any wise Rebuke thy Neighbour and not suffer Sin upon him I have told you only how many and heinous the Sins are which we fear we should be Guilty of should we Conform The Thirty Aggravations named Sect. 16. are Tremendous We have yet heard from none of you any thing which should excuse us from such Guilt if we did Conform And if the People think though they should mistake that all the Conformists are Guilty of the like Can ye wonder that they Prefer less Guilty Pastors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with when Heb. 13. they are Commanded to be Followers of their Guides If they mistake 1 Cor. 5. With such notâ— to Eat and From such turn away 〈◊〉 it Iâ—tolerable But bear with needful Truth as to your self You here would disswade the Nonconformists from their Publick Ministry and Plead it to be their Sin By this you own the Silencing and Alienation of about Two Thousand such Ministers till they Conform I ask't you formerly is it not Sacrilege to Alienate unjustly Devoted Consecrated Persons and worse than to Alienate Lands or Monies And is it not a Hindering of God's Word for which the Liturgy disswadeth Men from the Sacrament lest the Devil enter into them I only say If Men be Guilty of this which You think the Nonconformists are by not Conforming and They think Others are If you had Robbed Thousand Churches of the Communion Plate or the Glebe-Land or Consented to the Doing of it were it Separation and Schism for your Parish to prefer another Pastor of their own Choice And when you Publish your Consent to the Alienating or Silencing about Two Thousand such Ministers If Men think that you do much worse than a Thousand Church-Robbers though they should mistake Is not their Trusting another Pastor with the Conduct of their Souls a tolerable Thing Dear Brother Try to take off the Byass of your Judgment and bear with necessary Truth though rough Though your Logical Faculty run lamentably Low in this your Accusing Sermon I impute it to the Badness of your Cause Undoubtedly you have Learning enough to know that ye must Die and that after Death Judgment must be expected and that the Time is short and the Fashion of these deceiving VVorldly Things doth pass away And Can you think that your Approbation and Endeavours to Silence so many such Ministers while your own Experience might tell you That even You do need much Help in such a Charge as you undertake will be the Matter of a Comfortable Account If you think so I must say That a little sober impartial believing Consideration will make a Man VViser than the Reading of many Books with an unhumbled byassed Mind The Day is coming when you will see that ye were in a better safer way when with peaceable Dr. Tillotson you seemed to Consent to the Plat-form of an Act for our Concord and Restoration which made me tell many Parliament-Men Refer our Cause to the Councel of Dr. Tillotson and Dr. Stilling-fleet and we shall presently be healed But What is Man And VVhat need have we to pray Lead us not into Temptation XIX If Men know the need of the full Use of the Pastoral-Office for their Souls and cannot spare it and yet live where they cannot Enjoy one Half or Quarter of it Is it Schism for them to seek to Enjoy the rest Dr. Hammond in his Annotations oâ—t tells us That the Office of a Bishop was To Preach To Direct Mens Consciences To Visit and Pray with the Sick To take Care of all the Poor and the Moneys gathered for them To be their Guide in Publick Worship To Exercise Christ's Discipline Admonishing Rejecting the Obstinate Restoring the Penitent Strengthening the Weak Comforting the Afflicted Resolving the Doubtful Convincing Gain-sayers c. Some of your most Peaceable Conformable Hearers tell me We have need of a Frequent Help by the Company and Councel of a Pastor But we never see him but in the Pulpit And if we should all
go to seek him in another Parish where he dwells when ever we need a Pastor's Councel were he at Leisure and willing he could not have time to speak to one of an Hundred that might at once wait to speak with him So that we have none of this necessary Pastoral Help when we greatly need it Yea not the Sixth or Tenth Part of the Parish can come to Hear him in the Church And when We that most desire it get in it troubleth us to think that we thereby keep out those that least desire it but most need it who knowing the Difficulty of getting Room do stay at Home and never seek it So that Five Parts of Six of our Neighbours use not to go to any Church at all no more than Infidels And if in pity we perswade them to go to any Nonconformist's Meeting they say the Clergy will Damn them as Schismaticks The Question now is Whether Ten Thousand or Twenty Thousand in a Parish are bound to live without all Private Pastoral Help and Councel yea and to forbear all Publick Worshipping of God and Hearing of his Word And if they seek Relief of Nonconforming Ministers Publickly and Privately Whether it be Sinful Separation If Men can spare the Ministry Why are they Maintained If they are needful for the Safety of Mens Souls Must so many Thousands hazard their Souls for want of needful Help lest they be called Separatists If the Dean of St. Pauls be called the Parson of the Parish and Preach to others that can Hear him Will that serve the Needs of all the rest XX. In Moscovie where a Christian Prince and the Laws forbid all Preaching and Publick Worship save the Reading of Homilies and Liturgies Is it Separation and Sinful Schism to Disobey this and otherwise to Preach and Worship God XXI Is it Schism in France and such other Countries for the Protestants to Meet to Preach and Worship God against the Wills of the King and Bishops It 's true that great Sin is necessarily thus avoided by them which are not Imposed upon us But if it prove that any Sin is made necessary to Communion the Degree will not much vary the Case as to the Point of Separation XXII In divers Countries the Prince is of one Religion or Mode of Religion and the Bishops of another The Question is Who are the Schismaticks the People that in their Assemblies and Mode of Worship do â—ollow the Prince or they that follow the Bishops Some great Writers for Conformity tell me That if the King Command one Liturgy Translation Version Ceremony c. and the Bishop another I must obey the Bishop before the King Others say I must Obey the King before the Bishop of which before Bishop Goodman of Glocester a Papist complaineth of the King that would not consent that Clergy-Men should be Chancellours And I speak with no Bishop that disowneth not Lay-Chancellours Use of the Keys The Helvetian Magistrates are Erastians against the Clergies Power of Excommunication Many of the Pastors are of the Contrary Judgment The Duke of Brandenburgh is a Calvinist His Bishops and Clergy are Lutherans Which Party are the Schismatick XXIII Were all those Separating Schismaticks who from the Apostles Dayes did Meet Preach and Worship God against the Will and Laws of Princes sometimes of Heathen Princes and sometimes of Christians Constantine Valens Theodosius the Second Anastasius Zeno Justinian c. If so most Christian Bishops have been such Separatists I have in my First Plea and my Church-History given Instances enough XXIV Is it Schism or Sinful Separation to Disobey a Command about Religion which no Man hath true Authority to Give Authority is the Objectum Formale of Obedience and where there is no Authority there is no Disobedience in a formal Sense or privative Most Politicks say That Princes have no Authority against the Common Good All Power of Princes and Pastors is of God and is for Edification and not for Destruction God giveth no Power against Himself or his Laws nor the Souls of Men. If the King should Command me to Marry a Wife whom I know to be intolerably unmeet for me or to Feed my self and Family with Food which I find to be against our Health or to use a Physician whose Ignorance or Negligence or Untrustiness would endanger my Life I am not bound to Obey him both because it is a Matter that is without the Verge of his Governing Authority and because it is against the End of Government Regal Power destroyeth not Family-Power nor Personal Interest and Self-Government No Man hath Power to Destroy or Endanger the Souls of Men nor forbid them seeking their own Edification and Salvation I Repeat Bishop Bilson's Words p. 236. of Subjection Princes have no Right to Call or Confirm Preachers but to Receive such as be Sent of God and give them Liberty for their Preaching and Security for their Persons And if Princes Refuse so to do God's Labourers must go forward with that which is Commanded them from Heaven Not by Disturbing Princes from their Thrones nor Invading their Realms as your Father doth and defendeth he may do but by mildly Submitting themselves to the Powers on Earth and meekly Suffering for the Defence of the Truth what they shall Inflict Pag. 399. The Election of Bishops in those Dayes belonged to the People and not to the Prince And though by plain Force he placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully Reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their Right Pastor On this I further ask XXV If the Nonconforming People can prove That notwithstanding the times of Civil Usurpation and Bishops Removal their Pastors had a Lawful Call and title to their Office over them and they were truly obliged to them as in that just Relation Whether the Magistrates or Bishops Acts have made those Relations and Obligations Null That the Temples and Tythes are in the Magistrates Power we doubt not But more than Bishop Bilson even many Councils deny it of the Office and Pastoral Relation Yea the Universal Church was of the same mind And if so how prove you e. g. that the Relation of the Ejected London Ministers and their Flocks was Dissolved and that the Succeeders were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks XXVI That there are Alas Multitudes of Young Raw Injudicious besides Scandalous Priests no Man can deny that knoweth England and hath any Modesty If then honest People that are not willing to be Damned shall say We best know what is suitable to our Needs and what Teachers profit us and what not And we find that some are so Ignorant that they are unmeet as Plowmen to resolve the most concerning Cases of Conscience and their Conversation savoureth not of any serious belief of Christianity and the World to come and they do but Read a few dry words like School-Boyes saying a Weak Oration without Life or Seriousness and we can but little profit by them How prove you
that it is lawful for such to use more suitable helps though Men forbid it A Soul is precious God Worketh by Means and according to the suitableness of Means That agreeth not to some which others can make shift with Two or Three words from a Conformest that saith God can Bless the weakest Means to you or the Fault is in your self will not serve instead of needful Helps The King or Bishop have not Authority to Tie a Sick Man to Eat that which he cannot Digest or Hurteth him Every Man is neerliest concerned for his own Soul and most Entrusted with it Parish-Order it self is but a humane alterable Circumstance which I am not bound to observe at the hazard of my Edification and Salvation XXVII What if the Magistrate grant a Toleration of divers Modes of Worship as the French and Dutch Churches are here Tolerated and many in Holland and in many other Countries Are these separating Schismaticks that differ from each other If so it is not because they disobey the Magistrate for he Tolerateth them all If not then meer diversity of Modes of Worship maketh not Schismaticks XXVIII If it be no true Political Church in the strict sense as an Organized Society which hath not true Authorized Pastors and if any Parish have either Vncapable Persons or such as were never Consented to by the Flocks and so have no True Pastor and if the Bishops hold That Parishes are not proper Political Churches but parts of Churches having no Pastors that have the Power of the Keyes or the whole Essence of the Pastoral Office but only Half-Pastors that want an Essential Part of the Power If on any such Account any Parishes are no true Pastoral Churches Qu. Whether to Separate from such a Parish be to Separate from a Church in the sense in question XXIX The mutual Condemnations in the times of the Novations Donatists Nestorians Evtychians Monothelites Phantasiasts Image-Patrons c. tell the World how needful mutual forbearance is to prevent worse Divisions and Confusions And the Papists take themselves to be all of one Church though they differ even in Doctrines of Morality as dangerously as the Jansenists against the Jesuits have shewed and though many Sects and Orders be permitted to Live and Worship God with very great diversity in their several sorts of Monasteries Why then should the little differences of our questioned Assemblies be thought to be so great as maketh us not to be of one Church XXX Some good Christians think That though an undisciplined Church may be Communicated with occasionally yea and constantly while there is a hopeful Tryal of its Reformation yet when there is no hope after Patient Tâ—yal a better Course and Communion should be chosen where it may be had And they think that Multitudes whom they know to be prophane Swearers Cursers Drunkards Fornicators Haters of serious Piety Hobbists Infidels Atheists Sadduces c. are continued in the Church of England And they say they scarce ever heard one Man of all these Excommunicated nor one Man of them all ever brought to Publick Confession and Repentance And they think Lay Chancellours having not rightfully the Power of the Keys there is no ordinary Means of hopeful Reformation and Exercise of Discipline especially the Largeness of the Diocesses making it impossible to be used to One of an Hundred that according to the Law of Christ it should be used on And they think That the Church-Discipline is not only None as to the Right Use and made Impossible but worse than None while it is used most to Excommunicate from Christ's Church the True and Conscionable Members of Christ that dare not Conform and so to lead to their Imprisonment and utter Ruin And they think That no Man hath true Authority to confine them to such an Undisciplined and Illdisciplined Church and forbid them the Use of better where Christ's Discipline may be used Whether these Men be in the Right or in the Wrong if the Matter of Fact be true I should desire rather the Reformation of such a Church than the Reproach or Afflicting of Men as Separatists and Schismaticks that choose another sort of Communion as to their more Ordinary Practise not denying this to be a true Diseased Church And so much in these Thirty Instances about that which I think deserveth not the Reproach of any dangerous Separation I told you Thirty Instances also of Unlawful Separation which I named And now you may judge whether you spake to Edification when you said That the People are Condemned by their own Teachers without telling whom and for what and how far they Condemn them and how far not § 34. And Did you think the Consequence good That because we think it Lawful to Hear you yea and to many a Duty therefore we Condemn them for Hearing any one else that Conformeth not As if they that have Communion with your Diocesan-Church must have Communion with no other So far am I from your Opinion that I take it to be wofully Separating and Schismatical And will never be a Member of a Particular Church which will forbid me Communion with all others that differ from them yea that doth not hold its Communion in Unity with all the True Christian Churches on Earth Though a Schismatical Disputer for Prelacy tells me That though I Communicate with the Church of England I am a Schismatick for Communicating with Nonconformists who saith he are Schismaticks But he that will Communicate with no Church that hath any Guilt of Schism when the Christian VVorld is broken into so many Sects I doubt will be the greatest Schismatick and will Communicate with few on Earth And as Smith Baptized himself not liking any other Baptism this Man may become a Church to himself And indeed the word Condemn them sounds Harsh when it signifieth no more than that we Judge them to be Mistaken and Culpable If I Condemn every Man or every Church which I judge to be Sinners I must Condemn all Mankind I use not so harsh a Phrase of your Self as to say I Condemn You When yet I Judge your Book to be more Schismatical than the Meetings of most that I am acquainted with which you Accuse § 35. But yet your Mistake is Greater than I have hitherto mentioned I know not many if any that use to Hear Me who Separate from You Many of them are Episcopal and for your Liturgy and Ceremonies I think most of them go to the Parish-Churches and few if any that I know do deny it to be Lawful How then can you prove it True that we Condemn them What is it for Is it because they neither Separate from the Conformists or Nonconformists This is it that we Exhort them to It was an ill Slip to put our Condemning them for Commending them But a fair Exposition will make it Lawful § 36. But you say How they can preach lawfully to a people that commit a fault in hearing them I do not
their own only meerly for their singular Opinions And yet it will be hard for you to prove that all the Preachers on Earth must give over Preaching to any such as these What shame Blood and odious Schisines followed this Schismatical Principle while in doubtful Disputations or tolerable differences each party Condemned and Cursed the other I have fully manifested in my Abridgment of Church History VVhile by one Emperour and Council all the Orthodox were Deposed and by another all the Nestorians and by another all the Eutichians and by another all the Monothelites and by another the Corrupticolae and by another the Iconoclasts and so on How few were there un-Cursed and un-Cordemned in the Roman World And this keepeth the Churches in Schism to this day 8. Do not you thus teach the Nonconfâ—rmists to require you with the like and by your own Rule to judg it unlawful for you to Preach They judg indeed that it is lawful to hear you 1. When better 〈◊〉 without greater hurt than benefit 2. To sâ—ew their 〈◊〉 by their Practise viz. that they separate not from you as 〈◊〉 Church nor â—â—ke it for simply unlawful to have 〈…〉 you But they that think Conformity as great a 〈…〉 have told you they fear it would be to them must needs think that it is a fault in those that choose your Assemblies when câ—teris paribus and without greater hurt than good they might have better And must we therefore conclude that it is unlawful for you to Preach Suppose it were â—ut when we had the Kings Licence Or if in the times of Usurpation and thought to leave the Parish Churches tended Culpably to Division It followeth not that it was unlawful for a Bishop to preach in private though when you under the Usurpers kept the Parish Church he had preacht to some of your Flock But here you shew what your Labour tendeth to viz. To prove it Unlawful for us to Preach that you may perswade Us to give over If God will I shall elsewhere give you an Account of the Reasons of our Preaching and Answer what You and Others say against it And therefore shall say but little of it here But I am heartily sorry that you are come to such a Desire That you had rather so many Hundred such Ministers were Silenced than suffered to Preach without your Covenants and Ceremonies That you no more regard the Needs of the People that abound in Ignorance Carelesness and Vice nor observe no more the Power of Sin nor the great Want of Help to such Parishes as your own and too many in the Land that have need on other Accounts O! How dreadful and unsearchable are the Judgments of God That when so many Hundreds were Forbidden to Preach the Gospel the Plague must first give them some Degree of Liberty and the Flames continue it the next Year and the Kings Clemency after and Horrid Popish Treason next divert their Prosecutors while the Laws and Bishops all the while forbad them Even when the Parish-Preachers fled from the Plague and it was dying Men that the Nonconformists Preach't to And when the Churches were Burnt down and the People had no Priest or Place to go to for their own way of Worship yet neither Laws nor Bishops consented to our Preaching And such Men as Dr. Stillingfleet also come in to engage their Wit Reputation Industry and Conscience in the Silencing Design O! What Cause have we all to VVatch and Pray That We enter not into Temptation and to dread the Spiritual Judgments of God Remember Lot ' s Wife was a needful Warning A Solomon that is Numbred with the Wisest Men may be seâ— up as a Frightful Monument to bid us Take heed lest we Revolt And I take it for a greater Injury to us to perswade us to Silence our selves than to perswade the Magistrate only to Silence Banish or Imprison us For so to Suffer from another is not our Sin But Sacrilegiously to break our Ministerial Vow and forsake the Calling which we were Solemnly Voweâ— to and this while the Necessity of Souls cry for Help is a Sin which few Men are so bad as to perswade us to with open Face without some pious fraudulent Pretence § 38. Serm. p. 20. I do not confound bare Suspending Communion in some particular Rites which Persons do modestly Scruple and using it in what they judge to be Lawful with either total or ordinary Forbearance of Communion in what they judge to be Lawful and proceeding to the Forming of Separate Congregations i. e. under other Teachers and by other Rules than what the Established Religion alloweth And this is the present Case of Separation which I intend to consider and to make the Sinfulness and the Mischievousness appear Answ I am sure I am one that you expresly Charge as of this Number and I can best speak for my self and those of my Acquaintance 1. Is it true that I totally or ordinarily forbear 2. What mean you by Forming a Congregation If their Presence be my Forming them it is but because I speak to them For I neither Perswade nor Drive them to be there But if you mean Forming them into a Distinct Church and becoming their Pastor I was never Related as a Pastor to any Church but Kiderminster nor have these Twenty Years been a Pastor to any but borrowed other Mens Pulpits to Preach a Lecture â—o such as say they need it 3. Your word Separate I have Examined before You Separate from My Auditory and more than Separate and I Separate not from Yours Who then is the Separatist 4. All the Parishes about you and the Bishop of Ely in your Parish that judge it Lawful to Hear you yet are Absent from you and so are some Nonconformists that think they must Preach themselves and cannot be in Two Places at once Is that Separating 5. The French and Dutch Churches do all that which you here describe as Sinful and Mischievous only they have more Leave than we 6. Is all the Matter that We are Teachers which the Law alloweth not So were the Orthodox under the Nestorian Eutychian Monothelite c. Princes And so I have proved That the Christian Religion hath been much propagated in the VVorld 7. VVhat are the Rules which we go by which the Established Religion alloweth not Doth it not allow the Sacred Scriptures Or Have you proved That I go by any other Rule If the Act of Vniformity or the Canons be your Religion Do not they allow God's Word Or if they be your Rules omitting that Is not Vsing another Yet those that do joyn in Churches under Chosen Pastors when I do not I shall not Condemn till I hear their Reasons They may have more Cause than I have § 39. Serm. p. 21. They Vnanimously confess they find no fault with the Doctrine of our Church Answ 1. And yet are you one that would have them all Silenced 2. But this is not true You name
They are Puritans Presbyterians Fanaticks Separatists Schismaticks Hereticks Rogues is effectual arguing and convincing and some preachers it seems take their hearers for such Judges But men will be men and reason will be reason and truth will be truth and innocency will be innocency and pride and slander will shame their Authors more than the slandered when you and I are dead and gone § 50. Serm. p. 30. But suppose the first Churches were barely Congregational by reason of the small number of believers at that time yet what Obligation lies upon us to disturb the peace of the Church we live in to reduce Churches to their infant State And here is mentioned the community of Goods washing Feet and then They believe that the first civil Government was appointed by God himself over families Do they therefore think themselves bound to overthrow Kingdomes to bring things back to their first institution c. Ans 1. We call them not barely Congregational but associated for personal Communion If all the Kingdom had but one Bishop that were another Species of Government and Communion than Parochial 2. If one like you should plead for turning all the families in London into one and making only one Common Father or Master of a families who should send Stewards to every house of his own making to give them their victuals he only being the proper Governour and this man should plead as you do that it is disturbing the peace of the great family to reduce them to their Infant State by restoring particular families more wit or reputation than yours would not keep his cause from shame Or if he pleaded that all the Schools in a Diocess or many 100 or 1000 should have but one Schoolmaster with Ushers that have no power to take in or put out or use the Rod and that to retrive this to the Infant State is seditious the reason of mankind would shame his reasoning And when men know what Pastoral Guidance is the case here will be as plain 3. Our Reason for desiring not the Primitive paucity of Christians but the Primitive form of Christ is 1. Because Christ by his Apostles instituted it Mr. Thorndike once spake well to that 2. Because we can prove that he was faithful in forming his house and Church as Moses was in forming that of the Jews 3. Because we never heard it proved that man had power to alter what Christ by his Spirit in the Apostles founded neither having their infallibility nor commission 4. At least we think it is the surest way to hold to that which we are sure God setled till we can prove that men have power to change the very form 4. Teach us what to say to the Papists when they shall accordingly say to us what though there was no Vniversal Pastor in the Primitive times what though many things in discipline and worship be changed since why must you disturb the peace of the Church by reducing things to the infant State what though there were no Cardinals nor General Councils of Prelates to make universal Lawes for the Churches what though the Sacrament was given in both kinds and there were no private Masses or prayers for the dead must the Church be still in infancy What though the Apostles instituted the Lords day for publick worship and holy Communion may not the Church put that down and set up one day of her making once a month or year instead of it But I will not be one of those that will fight for man against God for I know who will overcome If you can prove that Christ gave your Church authority to pull down the Church Offices and form which he appointed and set up another and call it the Churches growth or emendation I will obey them But I have elsewhere asked who they were that made your new Church form If the first Church of Gods making it was only the universal headed by Christ and particular Churches for personal Communion if these made the new forms tell us who when and by what power and why they may not unmake them if there be cause and whether the efficient Church be not better then the effected as the Parent than the Child If you say that Bishops of Parishes did 〈◊〉 by consent in Asia or elsewhere above a thousand years ago how come we in England to be bound by them If you say that Princes were the makers of the new Church Species 1. Heathen Princes did it not 2. The Bishops will give you little thanks if you grant not that it was done before there were any Christian Princes to do it 3. One Prince cannot make Laws for anothers Country 4. Prove that ever Christ authorized Princes to change the Constitution of the Churches instituted by him and make new ones above his form except making officers for the Circa Sacra or variable accidents 5. And what Princes do they have power to undo And it concerneth us to enquire much more then about ceremonies how far this power of man extendeth May they make as many new Church Species as they please Why then may they not make as many forms as there are Kingdomes if not an universal Pope by the consent of most 5. But that which the Papists take for the Churches growth from Infancy the Protestants take for its gradual depravation And have written many treatises to shew when and how such corruptions were introduced And the forementioned book of Paulus Sarpi Servita lately translated tells us by what degrees much of that evil did spring up which some take to be the Churches Man-hood and the amending of the defects of Christs institutions 6. And you that wonder that I know not what you mean by the Church of England may next wonder that I know not what it is that you call the Protestant Religion In my full satisfaction I have told you that I mean by it simple Christianity expressed in the sacred Scriptures as the Recorded rule with the rejection of all humane additions which suppose the Scriptures imperfect as to their regulating use But if you suppose that men may without any Scripture proof of authority take down and change the Church Species which Christ by his Apostles made and make new ones instead and thus add to Christs Laws equal yea superior and derogating Laws of their own this is not that Protestant Religion which I am of and therefore I intreat you to define what it is you so call 7. When you have as well proved the very essential form of the first Churches to have been instituted but pro tempore as a mutable thing as we can prove the like of washing Feet and community of Goods we will submit And so we will when you have proved that God that made families made not Cities or Republicks that is did not institute civil Government of many families or that men who diversifie the forms of Republicks may overthrow families or their proper power Yea and that God hath
to you in my book of Concord that we are utterly unable to remedy it If you will not know who can make you know Do you think that when you say to all the Land say and do all that is imposed or you shall not be admitted to our Communion that it is morally possible to make all good Christians agree in bâ—lieving that it is all lawful or to make them all do that which they think to be unlawful I must freely tell you that he that thinks that his own or any others reasonings will ever so far change all the truly honest Christians in the Land knoweth so little of matters men or Conscience as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest But is the remedy impossible to the Imposers I am ashamed to debate the question But some men are so learned and wise that they will not quench the fire in a City nor save the Ship from sinking no forbear silencing Christs Ministers and scattering the Flocks as long as they can but say There will such or such an inconvenience follow It would cost you nothing to cure all this which it is impossible for us to cure Therefore all your just aggravations of the mischiefs of schism or separation fall where it concerneth some of you to look to it if you believe that there is a future Judgement rather than to call your selves Schismaticks under the name of others and puâ— God and man to say Thou art the man § 55. Pag. 33. You come to me for denying that I separate causelesly from the Communion of true Churches or set up Antichurches though say you they preaâ—â— when and where it is forbidden by Law and administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what our Church requireth This is not dealing with us with that fairness and ingenuity which our former brethren used they deny the fact which is evident to all persons For do they not the very same things and in the same manner that the others do How comes it to be then separation in some and not in others They are very unwilling to confess a separation because they have formerly condemned it with great sâ—â—erity and yet they do the same things for which they charged others as guilty of a sinful separation And I am cited Ans 1. This is like H. Fâ—wlis The Puritans are the worst men on earth The Papiâ—â—s are far prefer'd before them Because the Papists differ in fundamentals but the Puritans take mass for a Ceremony So we are the most disingenious and not fair dealers that own them to be true Churches and Ministers and hold Communion with them and yet deny that we are Schismaticks or separate We leave you therefore to treat with the lesser disingenious and the fair dealers that say you are no true Ministers nor is it lawful to have Communion with men that openly avow such hainous sin and covenant against ever endeavouring to reform notorious Church corruptions because with such we are forbid even to eat and commanded from such to turn away It s well you have some more ingenious and fair dealers than I am But the disingenuity is my denying your accusation I heard of a Gentleman that couâ—d silence any man and his way was he would accuse him of Murther Adultery Theâ—t or what his cause required and if he denied it he would say what will you make me a Lyar To give me the Lie deserveth a stab It is not only a crime if we do not toto pectore telum recipere or with Camero unbutton our selves and say feri miser or wheâ—ever we are beaten confess that we deserved it It 's an odd kind of suit for a man that calleth an innocent man traytor to bring his action against him for saying you slander me But it is the name or thing that we must not deny We will gratifie you in the first I do separate from your Church by half a miles distance and by going to my own parish and by preaching my self and so do most of the Parish Preachers that will not sit hearing you when they should preach But it is de re And what is it First I must tell the matter of fact I never took any pastoral charge these twenty years I gathered no Church I never baptized one person I never administred the Lords Supper once in about eighteen or nineteen years but of late seldom to some few since aged weak persons who were in my house and near who gave me special reason for it and the Liturgy alloweth it to the sick and all their friends that joyn with them while I lived at Acton and Toteridge I went twice each Lords day to the publick Church even to the beginning Here I go when I am able usualy once a day to hear the Parson of the Parish and I communicate with them in the Sacrament I preach twice a week in another mans Pulpit borrowed most to strangers that I have no more to do with My gain I thank them the accuser put me not to excuse I write and preach against Schism and all unjust separation and perswade all to go no further from any than they go from Christ or than they drive us away or than we needs must to avoid actual sin Well now what is the crime of separation 1. I preach you say when and where it is forbidden by Law Ans Is this the formal reason of separation Then disobedience and separation are all one I suppose you mean the Law of the King and the Parliament and not the Canons save as by them made Laws when I had given you so many Historical instances of the ancient Bishops and Christians doing the like and justified commonly by the Church did you think while you silently pass all that over and all the rest that I said for my justification that two lines of your saying was enough to confute all Certainly it was not me that you meant to satisfie nor any impartial man that had read my books This dealing beseemeth not so weighty a Cause You seem to say All preaching when and where it is forbidden by Law is sinful separation But c. I deny the Major The Primitive Preachers did so for three hundred years The Orthodox did so afterwards under Constantius Valens Theodosius junior Anastasius Philippicus Justinian and many more The Albigenses Waldenses and Bohemians did so The Reformers did so The Protestants when the Interim was imposed did so Episcopius justifieth it at large and the Arminians in Belgia did so The Martyrs in England and elsewhere did so The Jesuits in the East Indies did so But what if the Law forbad you to preach at a certain hour do you separate from the Church if you miss your hour They that Preacht Afternoon Sermons when forbidden were taken for disobedient but not for separatists And what if when the Churches here were burnt the Ministers had read the Liturgy and preacht in a place
done more than yet is done And if you think you can or do prove it must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying § 56. But the other half of the definition of a separatist is they administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth Ans 1. Why will you so reproach your Church we do it by no other rule but the Scripture and doth not the Church require that the Scripture be a Rule You know Polydore Virgil and other Papists ordinarily make this signal difference of Protestants and Papists that the Protestants make the Scripture the only Rule of their Religion On which supposition Francis Peron formed his act of disputing against them And are not the Church of England Protestants If you add another rule it followeth not that we have another than you have though you have another besides what we have 2. You say we deny the fact which is evident to all persons and you speak of me Is this true What Sacraments do you mean I never ordained any I never confirmed any I have married very few if those be Sacraments I have baptised no one these twenty years I gave the Lords supper to none for about eighteen years and rarely since as I told you But others do Ans And if they have no better reason to justifie the forsaking of their Ministry than you give well may they go on to do it 3. Do you mean here by Rulers the same as before by Laws or what mean you I suppose it 's the Canon and Liturgy that you mean And if by the Church you mean any thing but the King and Parliament you are unintelligible For the Church hath but two visible essential parts the Regent and the Subject parts And of the Regent only the supream is essential the rest being also subjects and but Integrals And it is a Requiring Church which you mention And so it seemeth that it is but a lay Church And nothing but a Christian Kingdom 4. I have told you that the French and Dutch Churches here administer the Sacraments by another rule than your Liturgy and yet are no Schismaticks 5. And your rule hath many parts It requireth Preaching praying reading the Psalms and two Chapters and delivering baptism and the Lords Supper in Christs words and repeating the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue And all that I do when I officiate for any man for I have no Church and others do it with whom I converse But if it be omitting any thing else in your rule that maketh a separation what is it I oft hear Conformists omit divers prayers I have seen Dr. Horton give the Lords Supper I think to the greater part that sate I doubt most Parishes separate if every omission make a separatist 6. But thus far you satisfie me that you judge all for separatists that preach without all your Assent consent subscriptions that the Covenant bindeth no man living no not the Parliament men that took it to endeavour any alteration of Church Government that it is not lawful to resist any commissioned by the King without exception and much more such That all are â—â—â—â—ratists that administer not Sacraments according to your rule which pronounceth baptized Infants saved so dying without excepting Atheists Infidels or any and this as undoubted and certain by Gods word which requireth the Minister to refuse Baptism and Christendom where the dedicating Image of the Cross is not submitted to when the Parent or adult judge it an unlawful Sacrament And where Baptism must be denyed to all that will not make Godfathers and Godmothers the Sole Covenanting undertakers for their Children without speaking a Covenanting word themselves And when your rule requireth all Ministers to deny Sacramental Communion to all that scruple kneeling in the reception and yet excommunicateth them and ruineth them for not Communicating when they are rejected And also ipso facto Excommunicate To omit much more such this is your rule which he that swerveth from it is a separist 7. But I had thought that we had not been like those late cavilling Papists that will not distinguish fundamentals from any little points lest it lose them a paultry advantage of abusing men Doth not every good Law and Rule distinguish between Essentials Integrals and Accidents and make more Accidents than are Integrals and Integrals than are Essentials And doth your rule do otherwise If not tell us what parts of your rule are necessary to one and what to the other or you say nothing to resolve the case Is every line and Ceremony Essential to the Church and to each member If not how cometh our omitting a form of Ceremony to cut us off as a separated Church any more than every breach of Law cuts off a man from the Common-wealth Yea if your Church be but a Christian Kingdom do not you cut off all from that Kingdom too that refuse your Forms or Ceremonies or Subscriptions 8. But Sir to be short with you I will yet believe that Christ is the Institutor of the Church and that he hath himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the bond of their unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath given Laws to regulate all mens Laws that determine of needful undetermined accidents And that no man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God yea those that are necessary to Church unity and Communion And that the grand Schismaticks of the world are the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing terms and conditions of unity and Communion § 57. But you tell me that we do the same things in the same manner as the separatists Ergo we are disingenuous for denying your accusation Ans 1. Judge of the fact by what is said 2. We do not say 1. That you are no true Ministers or Churches 2. Nor that it is unlawful to communicate with you Ergo it is not true that we do the same things 3. But it is the External action the whole same that maketh a separatist A Parson in the Ale-house lost his Common prayer book When he came to Church he told them his mishap and only read what was in the Bible Query whether his Flock and he were separatists An old Parson that I was bread under could scarce see but could say most of the Prayers without book He said what he could remember and got a day Labourer one year and a Taylor another to read the Chapters Query Whether we were all separatists § 58. But you undertake to tell the Reason why I am unwilling to confess a separation because we have formerly severely condemned it in others and yet do the same things for which we charged others as guilty of a sinful separation Ans If this be not true it is not well shew
excel in Love and Tenderness as much as in Knowledge and as mothers quiet crying Children and not therefore cast them out of doors 7. They Cross the ends of the Ministry if they take the Converting of Souls to be any of its end For as Generation so Regeneration maketh Infants and Children before they are grown Men and Children will be weak and troublesome And he that would have no such Children must not endeavour mens Conversion 8. Yea they greatly increase the Disease which they would Cure Men will not love those that hurt them so easily as others And when they are displeased with you they are the hardlier pleased with your Doctrine 9. Driving men into the Church maketh it like a Prison and corrupteth it as composed of involuntary Members 10. Yea they must destroy the Church if they will suffer none in it that have as great weaknesses as these Thus I declared both the evil of passionate Separation and of mistaking the way of Cure I would repeat the Sermons were it not for fear of being tedious 6. I have Printed in my second Plea for Peace what our Non-conformity is not containing as much in this point as he can reasonably desire as it was approved by many others named in our Judgment about the Interest of Reason in Religion so that he cannot say that I speak but of my self 7. I suppose he believeth that I am acquainted with more Non-conformable Ministers than he is or else he will not think that I am any such Antesignamâ—s as Bishop Morley calleth me And I meet with few or none that contradict what in this case of Separation I have Published They are commonly for Reformed Parish Churches not taking all in the Parish for the Church but bounding Churches in Parishes for Order and Preach elsewhere but on necessity and as Assistants and not as Adversaries 8. Doth not our Practice who go to the Parish Churches shew our Judgments to the People if we said nothing 9. I could not have drawn the People so much from too great distance if I had not preached to them At Acton I constantly heard Dr. Rieves and his Curate and I preached only in my house between his Sermons and then led the People to the Church which Judge Hales my neighbour thought was good service to the Church And the very Sermon that I was sent to the Common Gaol for was on Matth. 5. Blessed are the meek perswading to submissive peace and patience 10. When Bishop Morley forbad me to preach in his Diocess and I could not get leave at my departure to Preach to my hearers one farewel Sermon in publick I Preacht in a private house to them on David's words Bring back the Ark of God into the City if I have found favour c. purposely to perswade them as my last advice not to depart from the publick Parish Assembly though the Liturgy be there the publick worship But if the Minister that is there shall be intolerable 1. As utterly unable 2. Or a Heretick 3. Or so malignant an Enemy of Godliness as to do more hurt than good I advised them not to own any such Minister nor encourage him in his Usurpation And it was on that account that they long forbore till the Vicar was dead and a better succeeded him 11. Since then I have written to my old Flock to perswade them to joyn in the Parish Assembly and I hear not of three that do refuse it And all this I have said as to that matter of fact to shew you how farr to believe this Reverend Doctor 's intimated ironical accusation If he say that Other Preachers do not so I Answer First How knoweth he the Negative that never heareth them but like a separatist avoideth it as unlawful 2. Is it not likely that in season they preach their judgment 3. But I confess they may find more profitable work than to preach over all the suspected passages in the Liturgy and other parts of Conformity and answer all the Peoples objections against them The Builders and Owners of the houses are the fittest to do such offices to maintain it § 65. Is it that they fear the reproaches of the People which some few of the most Eminent persons among them have found they must undergo if they touch upon thiâ— subject Ans 1. So farr as your accusation is untrue as to the fact it 's but a further ill intimation to ask why they do not that which they do 2. If they that should better know what their auditors most need must preach what you appoint that know them less you may make their Sermons for them as well as their prayers 3. Those few Persons it seems at least toucht on what you say they preacht not And for my part whom I know you mean for one I never felt my self much tempted to grudge at the Dissenters that therefore will not hear me If they hear others more suitable to them by whom they can more profit as more esteeming them what hurt is that to me Would I have none taught the knowledge of Christ but by my self While we have all one Faith it 's some convenience for men to assemble and hear where they do it with unprejudiced undisturbed minds 4. If those persons you mention have before and since such censures as you intimate done what you would perswade men that they do not your self-contradiction is most palpable § 66. Serm. For I know not how it cometh to pass that the most Godly people among them can least endure to be told of their faults Ans 1. Did you not intend the Most Godly for a scorn you would confess it false 2. If you mean those that we esteem most Godly it is not true neither 3. If you mean those that think themselves so it 's no wonder if they mistake if not it 's not true 2. I pray you take warning by them or by your own reproof and do not now shew that you are one of the most Godly by less enduring to be told of your faults If otherwise you have forecondemned your own impatience 3. Verily they have dealt much more patiently with me than the Bishops and Canoneers have done Though some have spoken their dislike of me none of them even when they were in power did ever silence or imprison me nor ever forbid me to Preach save once at an Assizes How can you think that we can feel their censures when we have so much worse to feel from the Canoneers And when you ask Is it for fear they should have none left to preach to If you separated not from us you would see that such have some left still § 67. Serm. p. 42. Whence we see the Church of Englands endeavour after uniformity is acquitted from Tyranny over the Consciences of men by the Judgment of the most Learned of the Assembly c. Ans 1. Of the Assembly I have said enough 2. If you think the Assemblies Vniformity or
their endeavours for it were the same with th◠Church of Englands none that know the case will be of your mind 3 If you are intelligible we must suppose that you cite them to defend this as the conclusion which you own The word Tyranny is too harsh to be used without need But I suppose you include that the said Endeavours for Vniformity have no culpable severity in them That is that the Acts for Vniformity the Canons the Executing of them in Declarations Subscriptions Oaths Practices Punishments Corporal and Spiritual are no Sin but Lawful In your Epistle you say They are ill men that say This is stirring up to persecution All that I will say is that if you own these Endeavours for Vniformity I do not and the judge is at the door § 68. Serm. p. 44. If they form their judgments rather by prejudice and passion and interest than from the Laws of God or just Rules of Conscience c. Ans 1. This is true and good If we make not Gods Laws the Rule of Conscience no wonder if we err God preserve us from all corrupting prejudice passion interest and Canons 2. But when you compare our temptation from interest with yours I hope you will not say as Dr. Asheton that as going to the Bar of God he undertakes to make good that it 's through Pride and Covetousness that we conform not that is that we choose the contempt of high and low and to live on Alms and multitudes in pinching poverty § 69. Serm. p. 46. We find Vniformity and Order condemned as Tyrannical till men come into power themselves and then the very same things and arguments are used and thought very good and substantial which before were weak and sophistical Ans A true and sad confession when I read your Irenicon and this Sermon I the more believe you Therefore it hath been my happiness that I was never in Power no nor ever on the uppermost side unless as I am for the King I remember Dr. Rieves told us in the Pulpit that the reason why we were against Diocesan Bishops was because we could not be Bishops our selves And many others have said the like § 70. Serm. Those that now plead for Toleration did once think it the Mother of Confusion the nurse of Atheism c. Ans 1. Sure though you often cite Dr. Owen you mean not the Independents 2. If they spake either for or against Toleration as you do without distinction and were for all or against all and distinguished not the tolerable from the intolerable it 's no great heed to be taken what they say If there were but one false word imposed on you which you could not assent to and on 2000 such as you should you be no more tolerated than a Mahometan § 71. As to your advice to us p. 47. 48. 1. Did you think that because we must bear with much that is amiss in the Church that therefore we must either consent to it or practise it and Covenant against all endeavours of amending it or prefer it before better The man you talk of out of Mr. Ball was near Bremicham and was Melancholy to a kind of madness To your second I answer It followeth not that because we must not judge too hardly of Impositions therefore we must say swear and do all that is now imposed on us Or that he that dares not do it is unpeaceable I would we knew in what cases only you would deny Obedience and Conformity your self Doubtful passages and undoubted evils somewhat differ A fault-finding disposition and the Roman art that Boccaline mentions to swallow a Pimpion have a mean between them Papists Socinians or any that are uppermost may call for Conformity under the names of Unity and Peace To the Third separation was not the same thing in the mouth of the old Non-conformists as in yours They took it first for unchurching the Parish Churches 2. Or holding it a sin to communicate with them if they might be excused as to kneeling Crossing c. You take it for preaching when forbidden I have named to you the old Non-conformists that preached when they could And half of them I think got into small priviledged places exempt from the Bishops power and there preached most of them without the Liturgy and all without the Ceremonies And was not this against Law Sure Bishop Bancroft that describeth their attempts to set up new Churches and Discipline was not of your mind concerning the Non-conformists judgment We had but two in all Shropshire and Dr. Allestree when a boy was the Catechiz'd Auditor of one of them being his next Neighbour in a peculiar Chapel without the Liturgy c. And yet I think not that his Father and all that Assembly were separatists for hearing him Bradshaw thought we should submit to a silencing Law where our Ministry was unnecessary and so do I. Dr. Gouge was a Conformist when he wrote the Book which you cite To your Fourth Woe to them that believe our divisions indanger the Land and let in Popery and yet will cause them and no intreaty can procure them to forbear dividing us when they may and then revile them that have no way to remedy it unless wilful heinous sinning be the way § 72. That it is diseases that love not their own names in mens hearts that make the trouble more than our different judgments and Assemblings experience telleth us I was never a settled Teacher but in two places saving a Lecture at Coventry in the War viz. An Assistant at Budgnorth and a Pastor at Kidderminster And in both places there is an honest Conformable and a Non-Conformable Minister And the People go to the publick Assembly and many hear the Non-conformist privately between the publick Meetings And both parties as I hear live in very much love and peace and why might it not be so in other places if there were the like Ministers and People without all this envyous clamour and bugbear words of Anti-christian on one side or Separatists and Schismaticks on the other § 73. As to your next advices p. 53. 54. First Qui monet ut facias c. We speak so much against rash ignorant Zeal that you commend us against your purpose 2. We thank you for the admonition not to be always complaining of hardships and persecutions Doubtless our mercies are so great as forbid us to be over querulous nay leave us unexcusable if we are not very thankful For my own part my sufferings have been very small from man in comparison of what I endure in Soul and Body from my self They are few days in which I am not a heavier burden to my self than all my Enemies are But First I may not be senceless of the case of many better men who have great families and no bread but what they have by Alms in poor Countreys where the people are fitter to receive than to give And if they remove to bigger Towns
the Clergy tell them it is for gain and they that have one two three or more perferments reproach them as covetous that will rather beg than sin or famish yet your Mr. Hickeringil on the contrary proclaimeth how little they get Were it my case as it is very many Non-conformists to be in other mens debts and have nothing to pay house rent for cloaths for bread c. and to have Wife and many Children to pacifie and to live on bread and water or little more and be offered plenty if I would but do that which I take to be the hazard of my Soul I should be sensible of the temptation 2. And alas all this is nothing to the suffering of thousands of Souls to perish for lack of knowledge whose case it is lawful to compassion and lament 3. And nature maketh it lawful to feel when one is hurt and to confess that feeling 4. And methinks if Julian that abuseth the Christians should say your Master bid you turn the other Check his scorn would but aggravate his Sin Patience is our duty But if they call us to it who Preach and Print and call out for the Execution of the Laws against us as many of the most eminent of the Clergy have long done as you said in another case It will look but odly To preach to the Parliament to put Fire to the Faggot to accuse the King for his Licences and Clemency to tell the Magistrates and the World that our Schisms are because they execute not the Laws even the Laws that fine us forty poâ—nd a Sermon and lay us in the Common Gaol with Malefactors and banish us from Cities and Corporations I say for these men to say complain not is a smart accusation of themselves For from good men good is to be expected but if I meet with Gentlemen on the road that take away my Mony clothes and horse and wound me and tell me how much I am beholden to them because they did not cut my throat it 's lawful to know what they are though I must be patient And I told you before when you talk of being made a Sacrifice if a few despised men censure you while you have all your Honour Reputation Riches and many preferments to arm you against their thoughts and breath methinks sheweth that this Counsel is as seasonable to your self as to the suffering Non-conformists § 74. Serm. 54. Where are the Priscillians that have been put to death by their instigation What do such insinuations mean but that our Bishops are the followers of Ithacius and Idacius in their cruelty and they of the good and meek Bishop St. Martin who refused communion with them on that account If men entertain such kind thoughts of themselves and such hard thoughts of their Superiours whatever they plead for they have no inclination to Peace Answ 1. That is to your Terms of Peace and you being Judge 2. Knowledg is oft constrained It is no sin to know History much less Publick matter of present fact and least of all that which we see and feel Is it a sin to know when a man is in prison or when his goods or books are distrained c I the rather speak to this because a Reverend Bishop tells me also of this wrong as if those Bishops case were unlike to his and citeth the words of the Historian that mentioneth the suffering of the Churches in Spain on that account as if Maximus had but taken advantage of the Bishops spleen to Tyrannize and prey upon the Churches I desire not to make any men seem worse then they are nor causelesly to open the faults of any I profess to the world that it is not in an impatient aggravating of any sufferings of my own which are small that I write this but as the true stating of the case between us If the matter of fact be not truly stated the matter of right cannot be well determined I hate false History 1. It is agreed on by many of the best Historians of that Age beside Beda that Maximus wanted nothing but a good Title to make him one of the best of Emperours That he was said to be made Emperour by the British Souldiers against his will and being once in could not go back His usurpation was wicked but a way too common in the Empire He was of a pious life and great zeal for the Bishops and the Orthodox Religion what he did was to please the Bishops and to suppress Heresie and Schisme And it 's like enough he thought by their friendship to strengthen himself He rescued Ambrose at Milan from the Arrians and by his threats deterred Valentinian provoked by his Wife from persecuting him and so preserved the Church of Milan and many others 2 I read not of any of the Bishops in all his Countreys that complyed not with this Usurper save Martin Theognostus and Ambrose that was preserved by him 3. It was not Ithacius and Idacius only but all the Synod of the Bishops that were guilty and that Martin separated from 4. The Priscillians were down-right Gnosticks and so are not the Nonconformists who you say agree with you in Doctrine c. 5. It is but the death of Priscillian and a very few more that the Bishops were said to have procured and they were ashamed of it when they had done and denyed that it was their doing You force me for Historical Verity to tell you that they did not silence about 2000 Ministers which is worse than many bodily afflictions nor did they desire Maximus to make a Law that all that did not such things as ours should be ruined by Fines Imprisoned c. Make them not worse than they were Our Quakers are much like the Priscillianists Had it been but twice as many of them that had dyed in prison as were put to death of the Priscillianists the cases had not been much unlike But Mr. Thompson that dyed in Prison at Bristol Mr. Field that dyed in Prison here Mr. Hughes that in Prison catcht his mortal sickness Mr. Joseph Allen that had the same Lot and many more such were none of them like the Priscillianists but men of whom I and such as I come far short 6. The great mischief that those Bishops did was by suspecting men that Fasted and Prayed much to be Priscillians they brought reproach by unjust suspicions in all Countreys on the most strict Religious men and Martin was called by them a Priscillianist for being against the Bishops Persecution of them Let not me but publick knowledge here make the comparison How small was this reproach for extent and continuance in comparison of that which by occasion of Non-conformity hath been cast on men in England My memory serveth me from 1623 or 24 Commonly in the Countreys if a man did but pray in his family and spend the Lords day in Religious Exercises reading the Scripture or repeating a Sermon or reading a good book or singing a