find it in some of his late Writings together with those Reasons that he doth furnish us with as Arrows which we may gather up to shoot back upon him against communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required The giving a just Account of Baxter's Judgment against Parish-Communion is I acknowledge but Argumentum ad hominem adapted chiefly for the silencing Mr. Baxter but the Reasons that are couched in what is given out of Mr. Baxter are more than so and such as must receive another Answer than meerly the saying That Mr. Baxter is grown wiser and hath changed his Judgment for until Mr. Baxter or some other do validly answer what Mr. Baxter has said in his Five Disputations against Episcopacy and Ceremonies and in his late Treatise against Episcopacy what I have here urged will abide in its strength and carry also with it the Authority and Weight of the Vnanswerable Mr. Richard-Baxter Mr. Baxter's Judgment and Reasons against Communicating with the Parish Assemblies as by Law required impartially stated and proposed THere has been of late no little stir about going to the Parish Assemblies and communicating with them in their Liturgy-Worship and in special Mr. Baxter hath been warmely engaged in the Defence as he himself will have it of his own and the Practice of those that are for Parish-Communion and cannot suffer a little Manuscript said to be Dr. Owens to escape his Annimadversions and Opposition It is at this time no part of my Province to examine Baxter's Answer to Owen's Arguments I call the Manuscript Dr. Owens not only because common Fame directs me to do so but because in the Arguments there is the Doctor 's wonted Accuracy and Strength There are very many Scripture-Reasons couch'd in a few Lines and such as are too strong to receive any harm from Baxter's Answer as I could by divine Assistance clearly evince but at this time it shall be no part of my Work In this my aim is to shew What it is Mr. Baxter is really for that he is as much against holding Communion with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required as those are against whom he writes and that we are furnished with unanswerable Arguments against such Parish-Communion by Mr. Baxter Thus much will be made very manifest to a common Capacity by shewing what are Baxter's avowed Principles about the Institution Ministry and Discipline of Christ's Churches and what are the natural consequences of those Principles he holds and wherein lies the point in which he differs from his Brethren In doing which I will give you Baxter's sence for the most part in his own words directing you to the very pages of those Books of his I make use of § 1. All Christians saith Mr. Baxter are agreed that Christ is the Author of the Universal Church consider'd both as Baptized or Externally Covenanting call'd Visible and as Regenerate and sincerely Covenanting call'd Mystical as it is headed by Christ himself and called his Body and special Kingdom § 2. We doubt not but Christ has instituted the Office of the sacred Ministry to be under him as a Teacher Ruler and High-Priest of the Church in Teaching Guiding and Worshipping and that he has instituted holy Assemblies and Societies for these things to be exercised in And that a Society of Neighbour Christians associated with such a Pastor or Pastors for Personal Communion even in such Doctrine Discipline and Worship is a Church-form of divine Institution § 3. We know not of any proof that ever was produced that many Churches of the first Rank must of duty make one fixt greater Compound Church by Association whether Classical Diocesane Provincial Patriarchal or National and that God has instituted any such form vide Mr. Baxter's Nonconformists plea for peace p. 8. 12. § 4. Christ has stated on the Pastors of his Instituted Churches the Power of Teaching Assemblies and particular persons of leading them in publick Worship and Sacraments and of Judging by the power of the Keyes whom to receive into their Communion by Baptism and profession of Faith and whom to admonish and for Obstinate Impenitance reject and this Institution none may Alter § 5. He has Instituted Ordinary Assemblies and stated particular Churches as is aforesaid for these Holy Exercises and forbad all Christians to forsake them and he and his Apostles have appointed and separated the Lords day hereunto None therefore may abrogate or suspend those Laws all this is proved Mat. 28. 19 20. and 16. 19. and 18. 18 19. Joh. 20. 23. Luke 12. 37 38. Mat. 21. 36. and 22. 4 5. c. And 24. 45 46. Heb. 11. 25 26. Acts 11. 26. 1 Cor. 14. Ephes 4. 4. to 17. 1 Thes 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7. 24. Tit. 1. 5 6. c. 1 Tim. 3. Acts 14. 23. Acts. 20. 1 Cor. 16. 1. c. Mr. Baxter Vbi supra p. 24. § 6. The Diocesane kind of particular Churches which has only One Bishop over many score or hundred fixed parochial Assemblies I take saith Mr. Baxter to be it self a Crime Which in its very Constitution overthroweth the Office Church and Discipline which Christ by himself and his Spirit in his Apostles Instituted For 1. Parishes are made by them no Churches as having no ruling Pastors that have the power of judging whom to Baptize or admit to Communion or Refuse but only are Chappels having preaching Curates 2. All the first Order of Bishops in single Churches are deposed 3. The Office of Presbiters is changed into Semi-presbiters 4. Discipline is made impossible Mr. Baxter ' s Church History of Bishops and Council abridged ch 1. § 54. The like he affirms in his five Disputa of Church-Government pag. 19. As to the eight sort of Bishops viz. The Diocesane who assumeth the sole Government of many Parish Churches both Presbiters and People as ten or twelve or twenty or more as they used to do even a whole Diocess I take them saith Mr. Baxter to be Intollerable and Destructive to the peace and happiness of the Church and therefore not to be admitted under Pretence of Order or Peace if we can hinder them § 7. This Diocesane Church Government being de facto established in this Kingdom the parish Assemblies are not compleat particular Churches of the first Rank and Order they are but parts of a Diocesane which is de facto established as a single Church Infime speciei That parish Assemblies are not particular Churches is manifested from Mr. Baxters principles For 1. That Cement which is necessary to the being of a Church is wanting And it is impossible saith Mr. Baxter in his Cathol Concord p. 231. to be a Church without the Cement of Consent If many be forced into a Temple not Consenting it is a Prison they are not a Church if they Consent only to Meet on other Occasions as for some Occasional Act of Religion it is not thereby made a Church If they be commanded to consent and do not and if
it only be their Duty it maketh them not a Church but only proveth that they ought to be one So far Mr. Baxter And it is manifest that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law the Parishes are de facto settled as parts of a Diocesane Church and whoever joyn themselves unto the Parish assemblies as by Law required consent to be of the Parish assembly as It is a part of the Diocesane Church this doth every Parish Minster who swears Canonical Obedience that is Obedience to his Ordinary secundum Canones and who is to rest so fully satisfied in the Diocesane Government as to declare he will not endeavour on any pretence whatever the alteration of it But to form the Parish assembly into a compleat particular Church is to make a Substantial Alteration in the Diocesane Constitution Besides the Vesteries who as Mr. Baxter saith do after a sort represent the Parish Assembly are also sworn to the Diocesane Constitution and Government and therefore cannot be justly interpreted to consent to the Parish Assemblies being a compleat particular Church Whatever consent there is between the Minister and People it must be supposed to be no other than what is agreeable to the Diocesane Rule i. e. to be parts of the Diocesane Church taking none for their Pastor but the Diocesane Bishop 2. This Parish-Assembly doth not only want consent to make it a Church but it has no Parochial Pastor though the Pastor and Flock are the essential constitutive parts of a particular organiz'd Church yet it s not to be found in our Parishes It may be a Community saith Mr. Baxter ubi suâ—r without a Pastor not a Polity not an Ecclesiastical Society That the Parish Minister is not a Pastor is manifest for he is deprived of what is essential to the Pastoral Office This is evident according to the Principles of Mr. Baxter who distinguishing between the Old and New Episcopacy and who though he had more favourable thoughts of the Old than of the New and knows that the present is more like the new than the old and consequently worse yet writing against the restoring the Old he lays down his fourth Argument thus 4. That Episcopacy which degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocess or causeth them to suspend an Essential part of their Office is not to be restored under any pretence of the right Order of Peace But such was the late English Episcopacy And in his Advertisement to his Five Disp p. 13 14 c. to satisfie those that make some doubt of the truth of the Minor he saith All men in England that knew but twenty years ago what belonged to these matters are past doubt of it And I have no mind to dispute against them that contradict the common knowledge of the Nation as if they should doubt whether ever we had a King in England 2. Read over the Canons and the yearly Visitation Articles which the Church-Wardens swear to present by before they had ever read the Book or heard what was in it And then judge 3. Their Arguing for the sole Jurisdiction of Bishops and that they only were properly Pastors and that Presbyters had not the Key of Discipline but of Doctrine is some Evidence It is known to the Nation that the Pastors of the parish-Parish-Churches had no power by their Laws or sufferance to castout any the most erroneous Sinner or Heretick from the Church nor to bring them to open confession of their sin nor to absolve the Penitent but by reading of their Sentences and publishing what they sent from their Courts and consequently could do nothing of all the means hereunto for the means cannot be used where the end is known to be impossible All the obstinate scandalous Persons and scorners of a holy Life we must take as Members of our Churches having no power to cast them out Indeed we had the same Power as the Church-Wardens to put our Names to the Presentments but a power of Accusing to a Chancellors Court is not a Power of Governing especially when Piety under the Name of Preciseness and Puritainism was so hated and persecuted that to have accused a man for meer Prophaneness would have been so far from obtaining the end as that it was like to have been the undoing of the Accuser Obj. But is not the power of Discipline given them in their Ordination Answ 1 st In their Ordination the Bishop said to them Receive the holy Ghost whose Sins thou dost remit they are remitted whose Sins thou dost retain they are retained and in the Book of Ordination it was asked them Whether they would give their faithful Diligence alwayes to administer the Doctrine and Discipline of Christ as the Lord has commanded and as the Realm has received the same according to the Commandments of God And the Rubrick of the Common-Prayer-Book enables the Curate to admonish open and notorious evil Livers by whom the Congregation is offended and those that have wronged their Neighbours that they come not till they have openly declared That they have repented and amended But 1. This doth but serve to leave them inexcuseable that acknowledge Discipline to belong to the Office of a Presbyter when yet he might not excuse it The Bishops in the Ordination of Presbyters enabled them to Preach the Gospel and yet they were after that forbidden to preach till they had a Licence and it was put into the visitation Article to present those Ministers that preached without a Licence If they will deny us the exercise of the power that they first confess belongeth to our Office we are not answerable for their self-contradictions 2. By Discipline I suppose they mean but our Instruction and our publishing their Orders for Penance Excommunication or Absolutions 3. They were the Judges of the sence of the Laws as far as the Execution required and the universal practice of England which their Writings shewed us to our cost their Judgment what good would it do us if the Law had been on our side while the Concurrent Judgment and Practice of the Governours denied it and went aganist it 4. He that has kept a man from the Sacrament according to the plain Words of the Rubrick was to have been acountable for it at their Courts and so likely to have been undone by it So far Mr. Baxter Which sufficiently shews that the Parish Minister is in his Judgment degraded and deprived of what is essential to the Pastors Office for by taking from them the power of Church-Government they destroy the very Office of the Presbyters for Ruling is as Essential to their Office as preaching notwithstanding which as Mr. Baxter proves and expresly asserts the English Episcopacy taketh from the Presbyters the Power of Church Governing see his five Disput p. 39. But if it had been only the Exercise of the Parish Presbyters Power that had been suspended yet considering the Suspension is statedly established by Law or Custom during the Life of the Minister it
s a destroying his Office saith Mr. Baxter Though an Office may be Unexercised for a time on some special Reason yet if it be statedly suspended and that suspension established by Law or Custom during the Life of the Minister this is plainly a destroying or nulling the Office it self and not to be endured And surely the Exercise of the Pastoral power is statedly suspended and the suspension is by Law or Custom established during the Ministers Life and therefore the Office is nulled and destroyed that is the parish Minister is not a Pastor nor has the Parish Assembly any Pastor it is not a particular Church All this Mr. Baxter saith of the Old English Prelacy and yet thinketh that the present is much worse than the Old In his second Defence of the Nonconformists p. 64. Dr. Still saying That tâ—ere is no other reason of our Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Mr. Baxter Answers To say that we grant that there are no more Reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth there is more reason 1. From the Quality of the things imposed 2. From the designes and drifts of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the Aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. The late general contrary Church state and Engagement to it c. On these particulars Mr. Baxter enlargeth I will but just intimate what he saith on some of them 1. As to things imposed now which were not then 1o. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable part of the Parish Churches as the Vestries are are to renounce all Obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant so that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 5. The Reordination of Ministers Ordained by Presbyters was not then required and made a Necessary condition of their Ministration and Church relation even by them that confess Reordination Unlawful And therefore Plainly intimateth the Nullity of the first 9o. The Word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgies nor the 20th of the Acts as applyed to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and to the Flock c. in plain design to Alter the Office and Parish Churches To all this let us add § 8. That he that will hold Communion with a Church must consent to the Ministry Discipline and Worship of that Church see Cathol Concord ubi supra So that he that will Communicate with the Parish Assemblies must consent to the Ministery Discipline and Worship of their Assemblies that is he must consent to the Diocesane Pastor to the Parish Semi-presbyters and to the Parish Assemblies as being a part of the Diocesane Church and to the Diocesane Discipline for de facto this is the Constitution and Frame of Parish Assemblies they are but parts of the Diocesane Church they are under no other Pastor but the Diocesane Bishop have no other Minister than a semi-Semi-Presbyter who wants what is essential to the Pastoral Office and the Assembly wants that Cement of consent that is necessary to the making e'm a compleat particular Church This being so May we by any Act or Deed contribute to the fixing and establishing the Diocesane Episcopacy amongst us I 'll Answer according to sound Reason in conjunction with Mr. Baxter's own Principles If it were unlawful to restore the old English Episcopacy its unlawfull to give countenance and strength to it once restored for the strengthening it is but the continuation of the thing restored and if we might not lawfully help forward nor consent unto the Restoration of it we may not lawfully fix it when once restored for all these Mischiefs that are said to be the Fruits of its Restoration will be continued by a fixing it But according to Mr. Baxter it was not lawful to restore the Old English Prelacy much less Lawful to settle the New which he saith is worse His Reasons are many e. g. It destroys the end of Government and is certainly inconsistent with the necessary Government and Discipline to be exercised in the Churches It unavoidably causeth Separations and Divisions in the Church it degradeth all the Presbyters in the Diocess and destroys and nulls their Office it is the product of proud Ambition and Arrogancy contrary to the express command of Christ It so far gratifieth lazy Ministers as to ease them of the most painful part of their Work It is contrary to the Word of God and Apostolical Institution according to their own Interpretation Moreover it gratifieth the Devil and Wicked Men not by an unavoidable Accident but by a natural Necessity therefore saith Mr. Baxter in his five Disput pag. 32 to 50. not to be restored under any pretence of the Order or Peace of the Church And for the same Reason say I according to Mr. Baxters principles not to be complyed with not to be countenanced not to be fixed and strengthened by us though now restored Though the Order and Peace of the Church be pretended yet we must do nothing that countenanceth or stregthens the English Episcopacy we must not hold communion with them for that is to consent to the uninstituted species of their Church Ministry Discipline and Worship What then must we do May we separate without contracting the guilt of Schisme Take Mr. Baxter's own Answer § 9. If any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province Diocess or Country into one onely Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christs Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the power of the Keys and all essential to their Office though he should allow parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church it were no Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince see Nonconformists first plea for peace p. 52. Thus according to Mr. Baxters principles a separation from the Parish Assemblies and an erecting particular Churches according to Gospel Order is not Schism Our separation from the Diocesane Constitution and from the Parish Churches as but parts of the Diocesane is justifyable and not to be Condemned Now the Lay-Nonconformists are fully perswaded that the Law of the Land requires our coming to Church our going to the parish Assemblies as they are parts of the Diocesane Church which Mr. Bax. saith they must not do This being so manifest I presume the Reader will be querying about Mr. Baxters Practice and late Writings and say Why then does Mr. Baxter go to Church Why doth he write so much for it and cannot
Mr. Baxter's JUDGMENT AND REASONS Against Communicating with the Parish-Assemblies As by LAW Required Impartially Stated and Proposed Great Men are not alwayes Wise c. Job 32. 9. Surely in vain the Net is spread in the sight of any Bird Prov. 1. 17. Happy is he that condemneth not himself in that thing which he alloweth Rom. 14. 22. Printed in the Year 1684. TO THE READER THou art desired to consider That the Reason why the Author of these Papers has given thee the Judgment of Mr. Baxter against communicating with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required is to undeceive those who think that he has been of late writing for it whereas that which he hath written does hold good only on Supposition the Parish Assemblies are Congregational Churches independent on the Diocesane Bishop who is for our holding Communion with them only as such It has very much grieved the Author to see how many have been led from their Principles by some men who though otherwise Dissenters have since the late vigorous Execution of the paenal Laws not only gone themselves to Church but done their best to engage Others to do so too and to that end have observed the Rule of the Polititian To press the Examples and Practices of some Eminent Men as a good means to draw on the rest Thus have they published the Names of Nye Robinson Owen and Goodwin to countenance their Commnnicating with the Parish Assemblies in the Liturgy-Worship which is manifest Abusing those Persons while they are made to plead for a Practice they Disavow The Designe of the Publisher of Mr. Nye Robinson c. as he himself professeth Is as well to satisfie those that scruple Communion with the Church To wit with the Parish Assemblies in their Liturgy-Worship as to vindicate those who have complyed whereas there is not one of these men that spake a word in favour of Parish Communion Nye's and Robinson's Rapers are ONLY for the Lawfulness of Hearing the Conformist Ministers preach not for Communicating with the Parish in their Liturgy-Worship Besides it must be noted That what they wrote was confined to private Manuscript until some Years after their Death and never it may be designed for publick view And the Author of A speedy Remedy against Spiritual Incontinency pag. 4. doth assure us That at Leyden Mr. Robinson being confuted in the presence of above Three Hundred People did revoke his Opinion about Hearing and acknowledged that Hearing was a sinful partaking with that Ministry That this was Nine Years before Robinson's Death and that Robinson's Papers were not published in some years after his Death and had not been published then neither had they not through Inadvertency escaped the Flames and fell into the hands of an Inverterate Enemâ— who printed them Soon after they were printed Mr Cann wrote an Answer notwithstanding which thesâ— Papers are now Re-published and Robinson's Authority urged to justifie the LAWFULNESS Communicating with the Parish Assemblies in the Liturgy-Worship In like manner Dr. Owen who did grant that Forms of Praâ—ers in Thesi may be lawful is introduced as an Approver of the Lawfulness of the imposed Liturgy and Ceremonies in particular than which there cannot be a greater Abuse Dr. Goodwin likewise after the Diocesane Episcopacy was laid aside did say That in some of the Parishes in this Kingdom there are many Godly Men that do constantly give up themselves to the Worship of God in publick and meet together in one place to that end in a constant Way under a Godly Ministry whom they themselves have chosen to cleave unto though they did not chuse him at first These saith the Doctor notwithstanding their Mixture and want of Discipline I never thought for my part but that they were true Churches of Christ and Sister Churches and so ought to be acknowledged And as for holding Communion with them I say as Sister-Churches occasionally as Strangers men might hold Communion with them So far Dr. Goodwin Note here 1 st That he describes a Church which for its kind is Congregational though in it there is a Mixture and want of Discipline His Discourse is of a compleat Congregational Church not of an incompleat part of the Diocesane 2 dly He writes for our acknowledging 'em to be Sister Churches and communicating with them occasionally as Strangers but speaks not of our communicating with such Parish-Assemblies as are of the Diocesane Frame nor of fixing our Communion there as the Law now requires 3 dly He insists only on the Faultiness of Mixture and want of Discipline not on the Liturgy-Worship which sufficiently evinceth that he meant it of the Presbyterian Congregations which had no Liturgy not of the Episcopals which have For whoever consults what he has in his Exposition on the Revelations will find enough that shews how much he was against the Liturgy-Worship But yet this Doctor 's Judgment must be produced for the justifying our communicating with the Parish-Assemblies that are but incompleat parts of a Diocesane single Church in their Liturgy-Worship as by Law required Much after the same manner doth the Reverend Mr. Baxter deal with us when he refers us to the Judgment of the Old Nonconformists who though they were for Communion with the Parish Assemblies then in being yet esteemed the Diocesane kind of Churches Ministry and Ceremonies to be Violations of the second Commandment Idolatrous and Antichristian And as to the controverted Ceremonies for instance Kneeling at the Sacrament Mr. Baxter knows best how much he differs from several of them to whom he refers us for they assert these Ceremonies to be Antichristian and Idolatrous But Mr. Baxter notwithstanding the high Applauses he gives 'em has openly relinquished their Doctrine and fallen in with Morton and Burgesse having also espoused that very Distinction of Primary and Secondary Worship which they received from Bellarmine and Suarez the insufficiency whereof has been long a go detected by Doctor Ames in his Reply and Fresh Suite Moreover it must be observed that Mr. Baxter has not given us so full and distinct a state of the present Controversie between him and those he calls Separatists as was necessary for his Discourses for Communion with the Parish-Assemblies without fuller Explanation will as now they are be generally taken as if he meant it of the Parish Assemblies by Law established which are in a kind destructive of Christ's Churches Ministry and Discipline as Mr. Baxter himself avers whereby the weaker sort mistaking Mr. Baxter are induced to conclude the established Constitution to be good But what is this less than the casting a stumbling Block in the way of his weak Brethren These things then being so 't is become necessary that some-what be done to undeceive the World and seeing Mr. Baxter is the Person on whose Authority most of those Dissenters who are now for Parish Communion do lean I have thought it expedient to lay before them an impartial state of Mr. Baxter's Judgment as I
suffer a few Lines in Manuscript to pass without a publick Confutation What! doth Mr. Baxter say and unsay or is his Conscience against communicating with the parish Churches and his Practice for it God forbid I should think so of one whose Goodness and Learning both seem above the size of what is Ordinary Really therefore that I might find out the Notion on which Mr. Baxter insists to satisfie himself in holding communion with the parish Assemblies even when he is so very much against them as they are but parts of the Diocesane Church I have taken some pains and have been impartial in my Search and I think I have found out the Notion he builds on which I take to be this Mr. Baxter distinguisheth between the many Parish Churches and the Diocesane and the Church of England as constituted of such Diocesane Churches The old Nonconformists commonly owned the Parish Churches and the Church of England as made up of such but not the Diocesane It is therefore a Mistake that owning the Parish Churches and Worship is an owning of the present Diocesane Constitution Mr. B. against Dr. O. p. 9. So that Mr. Baxter distinguisheth between the Church of England as it is made up of many particular compleat Churches that are Parochial and as it is made up of many particular Diocesane Churches And here it must be Noted 1. That though Mr. Baxter supposes the National Church of England to fall under these two distinct considerations yet de facto its notorious that there are not two such National Churches of England existent and in truth its impossible that there should be two such Churches simul semel existent in one Nation for a National Church made up of many compleat Parochial Churches is in its very constitution destructive of a National Church made up of many particular Diocesane Churches Mr. Baxter himself confesseth that the Diocesane Church made up of many Parochial Assemblies and established as a single Church Infimae speciei of the lowest Rank and Order is destructive of the very constitution of Parochial Churches and the Diocesane Episcopacy and Discipline destructive of the Parochial and the same may be said è contra of the Parochial it is destructive of the Diocesane So that its impossible there should be in this Nation two distinct National Churches the one made up of many Parochial compleat single Churches the other made up of many Diocesane single Churches If then the National Church be in pursuance of the Laws de facto settled as made up of many Diocesane single Churches whether this be of Divine or Humane Right matters not its impossible to joyn our selves to the Parish-Assemblies as to compleat particular Churches For what-ever Mental Notions we may have of the Church of England our Notions cannot make the Constitution to be de facto otherwise than it is and all know that the National Church is de facto a National Church made up of several single Diocesane Churches and that there is no National Church of England existent made up of many compleat Parochial Churches But 2. Suppose one Parish Assembly or more should form and frame themselves into compleat single Churches and the People should consent to take the Parish Minister for their Pastor and the Minister should exercise the whole power of a Pastor in this Parish Church If this be so it 's acknowledged that Mr. Baxter may hold communion with this Parish Church and not own the present Diocesane Constitution But then it will also unavoidably follow that this Parish Church cuts it self off from the National settled Order it is a Dissenting Church for it hereby ceases to be a part of the Diocesane Constitution it is no more under the Pastoral Over-sight of the Diocesane Bishop but assumes to it self all that Pastoral Power that in pursuance of Canon and Statute Law is fixed in the Bishop so that this Parish Church is not established or allowed by the Law but is a Dissenting Congregation of the same Nature Form and Constitution with that of other Dissenting Churches for the species of these Parochial Churches Constitution Ministry and Discipline is the same with theirs and as perfectly inconsistent with that of the Diocesane and by the Church of England's Representative declared to be No True Church and the Minister and Vestry who consent to this Alteration do act contrary to their several Declarations and Oaths and are by the Canons Excommunicate and their Assemblies declared Conventicles In the 11 th Canon whose Title is Maintainers of Conventicles censured it s express That whosoever shall hereafter affirm or maintain that there are within this Realm Other Meetings Assemblies or Congregations of the King 's born Subjects than such as by the Laws of the Land are held and allowed which may rightly challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches let him be Excommunicated and not Restor'd but by the Arch-Bishop after his Repentance and publick Revocation of such his Wicked Errors And in Can. 12. Whosoever shall affirm That it is lawful for any sort of Ministers and Lay-Persons or either of them to joyn together and make Constitutions in causes Ecclesiastical without the King's Authority and shall submit themselves to be ruled and governed by them Let them be Excommunicated ipso facto and not be restored until they Repent and publickly revoke those their Wicked and Anabaptistical Errors And in Canon 73. where the Title is Ministers not to hold private Conventicles it is thus ordained For as much as all Conventicles and secret Meetings of Priests and Ministers have been ever justly accounted very hurtful to the state of the Church wherein they live We do now ordain and constitute That no Priests or Ministers of the Word of God nor any other Persons shall meet together in any private House or else-where to consult upon any matter or course to be taken by them or upon their motion or direction by any other which may any way tend to the impeaching or depraving of any part of the Government and Discipline now established in the Church of England under pain of Excommunication ipso facto So that those Parish Assemblies that are erected in other manner than according to the Diocesane Constitution and made compleat particular Churches they are as such no more a part of the settled National Order than the present dissenting Congregations but are by the Canons declared to be Conventicles and the Ministers and People that have had a hand in the framing their Parishes into this Order are ipso facto excommunicated This then being so I desire it to be observed that when Mr. B. joyns with these Parish-Assemblies Thus constituted his Communion is still confined unto the Dissenters Congregations he doth not hereby hold any Communion with the Church of England any more than the Dissenters do for his Communion with these Parish Churches is with them as they are erected in Opposition unto and destruction of the National settled
especially in these two Considerations First Because the abuse of Love-Feasts viz. Superstuity was never so great and scandalous in the Apostles time as the abuse of Kneeling viz. Idolatry was and is in the Synagogue of Rome And besides Love-Feasts were either before or after the Lords Supper whereas Kneeling is in the principal part of the Holy Communion Therefore if the Apostle banished Love-Feasts from the Lords Supper because of the Abuse and brought the Church to the Simplicity of the first Institution is it not a tempting Sin to retain the Idolatrous Kneeling of Papists and reject the exemplary Sitting of our Master Christ And the rather because it is in that Sacrament and in that part of the Sacrament which especially setteth forth our communion with Christ and his Church and is therefore called the Communion Doth not God strictly forbid us to serve him as Idolaters do their Godds The which considered can Kneeling wherewith Papists honour their Breaden God be honourable to Christ in his holy Sacrament For such Reasons many are convinced that Kneeling at the receiving the Communion is Unlawful and seeing without Kneeling they cannot have Communion with the Church of England they cannot locally communicate with her but yet highly honour her for the soundness of her Doctrine and do mentally hold Catholick Communion with her so far as she agrees with the Catholick Church but Necessity makes them to with-hold local Communion from them To make this yet more clear the Reader must Observe that the Argument Mr. Baxter doth furnish them with runs thus It is not lawful to communicate with those that impose Sinful Terms of Communion This Mr. Baxter affirms But the Church of England imposeth many things as Terms of Communion with them which they think are sinful Ergo They must not communicate with them Now in the Minor Mr. Baxter and they differ he thinks the things they scruple for instance Kneeling are Lawful but yet proposes strong Arguments against the Lawfulness of Kneeling which Arguments though not Convincing unto him yet are so unto them And therefore whatever is his Liberty it is their Duty to with-hold their Communion from the Church of England still honouring her for the soundness of her Doctrine c. § 11. Mr. Baxter in his Schism detected p. 40. affirms That he who is unjustly cast out of the Church and by its very Laws Excommunicated ipso facto is no damned nor sinful Schismatick for Worshipping God in a Church that will receive him But according to the Judgment of Mr. Baxter Protestant Dissenters are unjustly cast out of the Church of England and by its very Laws ipso facto Excommunicated Ergo they are not Sinful Schismaticks When Mr. Baxter speaks of going to another Church Mr. Baxter must be understood to mean a with-holding Communion from the Excommunicating Church and commuicating with another whose Laws do not ipso facto Excommunicate The which being so the Argument against Mr. Baxter is valid for the acquitting their Seperation from the Guilt of Sin § 12. There is another Argument which Mr. Baxter in Conjunction with Dr. Sherlock gives us and which will acquit the Lay-Dissenter from Sin 〈…〉 no Sin but a Duty to with-hold Communion from a Schismatical Church This Dr. Sherlock doth over and over assert But the Church of England is a Schismatical Church saith Mr. Baxter It is a Schismatical Church it is guilty of haneous and aggravated Schisme Mr. Baxter in his first Plea p. 41. saith § 14. If any Proud or Passionate or Erronoous Person do as Diotrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications it is TYRANNICAL SCHISME what better Name soever cloaks it If any should make sinful Terms of Communion by Laws or Mandates imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin this wore HANEOUS SCHISME And the further those Laws extend and the more Ministers or People are cast out by them the greater is the Schisme § 15. If any should not only Excommunicate such Persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more haneously aggravated Schism § 16. All those would be deeply guilty of such Schism who by Talk Writing or Preaching justifie it and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Then look to your self good Mr. Baxter reflect on your Talk and Writing and clear your self from the guilt of Reproaching the Innocent as Schismaticks if you can But I 'll proceed § 17. If any should corrupt such a Church or its Doctrine Worship or Discipline in the very Essentials by setting up forbidden Officers and Worship or casting out the Officers Worship or Discipline instituted by Christ and then prosecute others for not communicating with them would be yet the more Haneous Schisme § 18. If either of the last named sorts would not be contented with mens communion with them but would also silence and prosecute such as will not own justifie and consent to all that they do by Subscriptions Declarations Covenants Promises or Oaths this would be yet more aggravated Schism So far Mr. Baxter Now let any impartial Reader compare what is here said with what else-where Mr. Baxter accuses the Church of England of and he 'll find all this to be but his Description of the Church of England which according to the general import of his Writings must be looked on as guilty of Haneous Aggravated and Tyrannical Schism that is to be deeply Schismatical and therefore according to Dr. Sherlock not to be communicated with But I 'll draw to a close beseeching the Reader to consider well what Mr. Baxters judgment is about communicating with the Parish-Assemblies by Law established how much he is against it and what are some of his Reasons and he will find I. That Mr. Baxter is as much against communicating with the Parish-Assemblies as by Law required as his Brethren are The Parish-Assemblies by Law established are Diocesane and with them as such Mr. Baxter communicates not But first fancies the Parish Assembly to be a Congregational Church and the Parish Minister to be an Independant Pastor exempt from the spiritual Jurisdiction of the Diocesane Bishop and then holds communion with it as such that is he either communicates with it as if it were what indeed it is not or if it be really such a Church as he fancies it to be his communion with it is only as 't is a Church separated from the National settled Order For the Parish Assembly as a part of the National settled Order is no Church it has no Pastor c. II. That Baxter's communion is no more Catholick than theirs though he talks more of the Name he has no more of the thing than they have Doth he hold Catholick Communion mentally with the Universal Church so do they Do they with-hold mental communion from Parish-Assemblies as by Law established i. e. as they are parts of the Diocesane â—nstitution So doth Mr. Baxter Are the Conâ—â—â—â—â—…tions to which their local Communion is confined of a Constitution different from and independent on the Diocesane So is the Parish Church with which Mr. Baxter communicates if it be really what he fancieth it to be so that his Local Communion is as much confined to Dissenting Assemblies as theirs is This is on a Supposition that Mr. Baxters Imaginations were operative ad extra and would make a real change on the Constitution But if the Parish Assembly continues de facto as established then I must say III. That Mr. Baxter holds both those Premises from which a conclusion justifying their separation doth naturally follow The Premises are these It is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Corruptions that are in the Parish Assemblies But the very Constitution of the Parish Assemblies and Ministry by Law established are Corruptions These are Mr. Baxter's Premises And let the World judge whether this Conclusion namely That it is our undoubted Duty to separate from the Parish Assemblies and Ministry as by Law established doth not naturally flow from them justifying a with-holding Communion from the Parish Assemblies In fine it must be observed that if the Parish Assemblies be really de facto but parts of the Diocesane Church and no compleat Churches Mr. Baxter must justifie the Separation and that he doth so I will give you his own words as I find 'em in his Schism detected p. 28. Either our Parish Churches saith he are true Churches or not if not the Separatists are so far in the Right and separate not from true Churches eo nomine because they separate from them so far Mr. Baxter who if the Parish Assemblies be but parts of the Diocesane Constitution and not true compleat particular Churches justifies the separation from 'em And who knows not that the Parish Assemblies as by Law established are but parts of the Diocesane FINIS