was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
Gifts and do not cross Christ's Institution whatever inconvenience may be in them 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them Nature maketh it necessary that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency whether for one meeting for a Month or Year or during his life and therefore the Church may determine in that Yet we must add That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or making a moderator constant having been of old and late the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation we think it highly inconvenient 4. Neither do we deny that among Ministers the wiser graver and men of more Holiness and Experience should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren yea we deny not but some of Opinion for parity of Power have overborn their Brethren through their loftiness of Spirit an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian it is not mens Corruptions but their Principles that our debate is about 5. We deny not but the Name Bishop that in the Apostles times was common to all Eldeâ—s of the Church began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator who also was called Primus Presbyter and that this priority for as small as it was was too much affected and taken notice of even in the Apostles times Diotrephes who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter had a great mind to that dignity but this was when â—ew of the Apostles were now alive It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places and was sâ—atched at in other places while yet the ancient Order of Parity among the Pastors of the Church was in most places retained 7. Though we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church for the first Three Hundred Years or that it was general in the fourth Century and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government yet it is not mens Authority but divine Institution that we are determiend by and lay the stress of our Cause upon and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie but the Scripture Sect. 3. It might have been expected that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame as he doth in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates should have proved the Divine Institution or at least the lawfulness of that Office and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier though not so perswasive a way to wit to refute Mr. B's Assertions about Episcopacy and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question as I hope shall appear in our Progress And I have often observed that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear and sure procedure in this Controversie if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert and the Foundation on which they build it as to the thing some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them that they make it little or no more but a Presidency So the learned and Pious Vsher who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party Grotius also goeth this way de Imper. sum potest circa sacra p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church who are to be their Counsel Our Author Iren. p. 309. saith that both Jerom and Ignatius agree that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters nor being liable to their censures So the generality of our High Church-men Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute or delegate to none but Christ some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments in his own Person and that this he should be constantly exercised in Others that his Work is to rule and that he need not trouble himself with other Work unless he please Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only but of Government and Discipline to others yea to Lay-men that by them he may Excommunicate and judge Ministers and People Others think that he hath no power to do so so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government others allow it Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church and that really and not seemingly only as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter who yet are not the Church of whom they must proceed to a Mock election others think those that come in this way to be none of Christs Bishops Some own Diocesan Bishops who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy as it is stated among us in Metropolitans Primates Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons Chancellors c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter others deny this many School men are on both sides it was debated at the Council of Trent In all these things I observe very much Confusion and want of a distinct Idea of that Office that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren Sect. 5. There is as little agreement or distinctness among them about the Foundation on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth Some of them are for iâ—s divine Right as being instituted by Christ But this Plea they find so hard to be managed and to have so ill success and to be so little the way to preferment as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate that most have laid it aside others that it is of Apostolick institution being not commanded by Christ but prudently setled by the Apostles Others that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church afâ—er the decease of all the
A Rational Defence OF Non-conformity WHEREIN THE Practice of NON CONFORMISTS IS Vindicated from Promoting Popery and Ruining the CHURCH imputed to them by Dr. Stillingfleet in his Unreasonableness of Separation ALSO His Arguments from the Principles and Way of the Reformers and first Dissenters are Answered And the Case of the present Separation truly stated and the blame of it laid where it ought to be And the way to Union among Protestants is pointed at By GILBERT RULE Minister of the Gospel Ezek. XLIII 10 11. Thou Son of Man shew the House to the House of Israel that they may be ashamed of their Iniquities and let them measure the pattern c. And if they be ashamed of all that they have done shew them the form of the House and the fashion thereof c. LONDON Printed for Iohn Salusbury at the Rising Sun near the Royal-Exchange in Cornhil M DC LXXXIX THE PREFACE THE fierce Contentions of this Age about the Mint and Annise and Cummin of Religion I mean Religious Ceremonies that men have devised and imposed hath in a great measure hindered people from minding with that application that becometh the weightier things of the Law to wit the love of God and of our Neighbour and due regard to the promoting of true holiness and the Salvation of mens Souls the heavy Sufferings of many in England and in Scotland for not complying with such things as their imposing Task-masters did not so much as pretend to give Scripture warrant for are too notorious to be denied and too smarting to be forgotten How many thousands have been put on this sad Dilemma either to wound their Consciences or to be destroyed by taking away their Estates Liberties Livelihood and life it self But now the Lord in his infinite wisdom and tender mercy to an undeserving generation having by some late Revolutions first broken the Yoak of the Oppressors and made them for some time taste a little of the Cup that they had made their brethren drink deeply of and then gratiously and wonderfully delivered both contending parties from that utter ruine that was manifestly impending and made us like them that Dream'd and done exceeding abundantly for us above what we could think out done our faith as was foretold Luk. 18. 8. He hath by this surprising providence laid an Obligation on all Protestants and they who are such in earnest will mind it to turn to the Lord from every evil way that hath been in their heart or hand and particularly to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace to endeavour to speak and do the same things and where that cannot be attained through want of light and other sinful disorders of the Soul not easily nor soon removed without that pouring out of the Spirit from on high promised Isa. 33. 15. and else where which we should daily and earnestly pray and wait for To bear with one another in Love. They who know no other way to Unity but Uniformity will for ever miss of their design unless either all men were perfect in knowledge and wholly freed from irregular passions or Conscience were wholly laid to sleep and its use banished out of the World. Toward this blessed end peace among Protestants sober reasoning between Dissenting Parties may have some usefulness even Eristick Writings may prove Irenick if managed and read with that Spirit that becometh the gospel that is with due love to truth and peace and if I did not judge this book to be of that tendency I should never consent that it should see the light The Apostle giveth us two excellent directions for attaining this end Phil. 3. 16. beside the duty of forbearing one another till the Lord clear mistakes to them who are out of the way which he doth more than insinuate ver 15. but alas even about these ways to peace we contend as will appear in this Treatise Yet in my opinion the Apostle doth there clearly hold forth that there is a rule to which all are obliged to conform their actions and principles and particularly Church Administrations Let us walk by the same rule In all reason this rule must be Divine in that it is here generally injoyned to be minded and that by all Christians Is it imaginable that the Apostle intendeth to oblige all the Churches to take a rule of mans making for directing them how they shall please God Besides Church or humane Canons never were or are like to be the same in all Churches nor indeed can they of the things that are left to the Church to order at her discretion that which is fit in one place may be most unfit in another Wherefore if the Apostle had aimed at these he would have spoken of Rules not a rule We have then cause to think that the way to Church peace is to take the Word of God for the rule by which all the affairs of his House should be ordered If we would enjoyn nothing peculiar to Religion to be observed but what is warranted there And would not be too busie in making Canons for determining these things that are Extrinsick to Religion its Rites common to it with other solemn actions further than necessity requireth and in these determinations keep within the bounds of the general directions of the Word of God If we would do all things in the Church decently and in order and then make nothing such by our Will and Authority but enjoyn the Observation of these things that Scripture hath declared to be such or nature and civil custom hath made such If we would content our selves with that decency and order that was in the Apostolick Church Our Controversie would soon be at an end It is true even where Scripture is taken for the rule there might be some different apprehensions about the meaning of this rule what it enjoyneth but they who sincerely seek the mind of God in his words and depend on him for the light of his Spirit readily will either find what they seek or will soberly and peaceably differ from their brethren But when this rule is laid aside and mans wisdom must injoyn what is fit in God's Worship even though they be Learned Wise and Holy men and in authority in the Church yet not infallibly guided and much more when any of these Qualities are wanting there can hardly he an end of controversie it will be hard to set bounds to their multiplicity of which the Popish Church is a fatal Witness and hard to bring them to an end by composing them unless blind obedience be asserted at least as to some things And how many things these shall be who knoweth The other Direction that the Apostle giveth in that place is let us mind the same things Vnity in design is very conducive to Vnity in Heart and Practice When all have one end before them they will the more readily fall into the same way leading to that end as when many are travelling to the
a mind to expose the present Non-conformists as far degenerate from their Ancestors in the same Profession But of this more in its due place Sect. 3. He complaineth p. 2. of his own hard Usage on the like Occasion His Sermon entituled The Mischief of Separation was indeed solidly refuted by several Non-conformists and in that sence his Sermon was hardly used but I never heard before that hard Arguments were counted hard Vsage from an Adversary and if Bishop Jewel had no harder Usage for his Sermon there was no need of this Complaint unless it were to make his own hard Fate the more conspicuous by so venerable a Parallel This Reverend Author should consider That tho' we owe and give all due deference to the Memory of Bishop Jewel and to the Worth of Dr. Stillingfleet for their Labours in Defence of Protestantism yet it is neither Ingratitude nor Incivility in us to defend the purity of Gospel-Worship Worship against their Assaults We honour them but retain our Liberty of dissenting from them and of owning our Dissent when they mistake and are out of the way We call no man Rabbi having one Master CHRIST whose written Word we make the Rule of our Faith and Worship But one great part of the Doctor 's hard Vsage lieth in this That it hath been maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that he was put on that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise Persecution I confess Malice to suggest Evil and over-easiness to believe it is a thing too common among Dissenting Parties the Lord heal these Distempers on both hands but the particular Ground of this Charge on his Antagonists should have been mentioned If any have suspected that he was put on the Work if the work be good that doth extenuate the fault of such Suspicion I know no Evil in following either the Advice or Command of others to do our Duty So that hither to there is no Ground for the heavy Charge of Malice and malign Credulousness If any have judged his Design that is not fair dealing such Secrets are to be left to the Judgment of him who knoweth the Hearts But tho' I have a great deal of Charity in reference to the Intentio Operantis yet it is not so easie to pass a favourable Judgment on the Intentio Operis but he endeavoureth afterward his Vindication in this where I shall attend him Sect. 4. His professed Design in preaching that Sermon was only his just apprehension That the Destruction of the Church of England under a pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the likeliest Means to bring it Popery in Here he supposeth if I understand what he saith that the Protestant Dissenters aim at the destruction of the Church of England or at least that Non-conformity tendeth to destroy it than which no imagination can be more groundless nor can I conceive what should give cause to such a thought unless it be an extravagant Idea that some men frame to themselves of the Church of England as if her Essence consisted in the Ceremonies and the removing of these were the destruction of the Church We who Dissent from that which they call the Church of England are far from such low and dishonourable thoughts of Her we look on her as a Reformed part of the Church of God professing the Protestant Religion in opposition to the Errours of Popery but mixing this True Religion with some humane Ceremonies and therefore we think that opposing of these Ceremonies is so far from tending to the Destruction of the Church that it conduceth much to reforming of Her But suppose the Ceremonies were good and lawful things it is still a strange Notion and inconsistent with the Sentiments concerning them that our Brethren do profess that they are indifferent things and of no necessity If they be so what hazard is there of the destruction of the Church from their being laid aside If the Non-conformists had their wish it would inferr no other Alteration in the Church but the removal of such Accidents which the A betters of them do say That possunt adesse vel abesse sine subjecti interitu such Incoherences would not have been expected from so Learned a Pen. Sect. 5. It is also unfairly to say no worse hinted That Non-conformists Zeal against Popery is but pretended and that the real Design is to destroy the Church of England we can clear our selves of both before a higher Bar and therefore lay little weight on such Suggestions neither do we meerly dislike the Ceremonies because they are Popish he knoweth that we have other Arguments against them I hope Non-conformists shew their Zeal against Popery in other things Nor do we desire the Destruction of the Church that these Ceremonies may fall to the Ground but the removing of the Ceremonies that the Church may be more acceptable to him who can make her stand in despight of the Gates of Hell. If he charge us with the Church's Ruin because our Divisions about the Ceremonies may tend to it For answer Let it be considered who giveth culpably the Rise to these Divisions Whether they who forbear the Ceremonies because Sinful or they who do violently impose them tho' Indifferent in their Apprehension But this will afterwards fall to be further discoursed I deny not that Papists design the Ruin of the Church of England but not as Ceremonious but as Protestant they do not design to destroy Her by removing what the Non-conformists scruple but by taking away what they agree with Her in And therefore there is no Cause to think that the removing of the Ceremonies which Non-conformists desire though under a pretence of Zeal against Popery or under whatever other pretence should be one of the likeliest means to bring it in which our Author feareth Sect. 6. The Learned Dr. hath caught this Notion That Non-conformists by their Zeal against Popery are like to be Instruments of bringing it in and he seemeth to be very fond of this fine Conceit runneth away with it at a great rate is confirmed in it from the proceedings of Papists p. 2. starteth a Paradox p. 3. As it seemeth to unthinking People like the Non-conformists that when Papists 〈◊〉 appear no longer in that Work others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry it on for them and these unthinking people are carried away with meer no se and pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most passion and with least understanding against is and more to this purpose One may think it little Glory for the highly Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to labour in refuting such a contemptible Adversary as he here representeth But their Wisdom and Learning and Reasons for what they hold will I hope find more Equitable and less Supercilious Judges in the world neither will Hectoring stop their Mouths though they are ready to be silent to plain
shew our consent with the Protestant Churches To these I return a word or two in general and then shall answer them particularly â— Why was not Scripture consulted in this weighty matter which wise men think is a safer and better Rule of Reformation than any of the Three here mentioned Shall we slight or cross Christ's Institution in the Worship of God for the sake of Antiquity or Papists or Protestants either I am far from thinking that our Reformers had so little regard to Scripture nay that was the Weapon they alwaies used against the Papists tho' in reference to the Ceremonies they did not so well consider it as they should have done But the Dr. and his Party seem to lay little weight on it in this Controversie for he maketh little or no use of it through this large Book which is somewhat strange in a Controversie of Divinity It is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to use weapons so far different from those of the Apostles and therefore I hope they will not prove mighty through Christ as his were 2 Cor. 10. 4. None of these Reasons nor all of them in conjunction is sufficient to establish any point of Truth or to warrant any part of Divine Worship Wherefore they should first have proved the Ceremonies to be lawful and then these three Reasons might well have come in as Auxiliaries to confirm the use of them but to manage the Worship of God by such Considerations without any other Reason was too slender a Ground to proceed upon Sect. 25. Let us now consider his three Reasons in particular For the First Due reverence to Antiquity Ans. 1. We reverence Antiquity as much as our Brethren do but with these two Cautions 1. That we preferr the first Antiquity to that which was later the Apostolick Church to the Ages of the Church that succeeded If they can shew us any footsteps of the Ceremonies in that Church we shall embrace them if not give us leave to reject them even out of Reverence to Antiquity 2. We do not own Antiquity where there was no Infallibility as was in the Apostles for the Rule of our Faith or Worship We know the Church may erre and did very soon begin to decline of which somewhat before and more afterward We reverence Antiquity so far as not to recede from it without sufficient warrant from Scripture or clear Reason and to reverence it further is to idolize it and put it in the place of Divine Authority Ans. 2. Why are not our Brethren uniform in their Reverence to Antiquity Do not they desert Antiquity in more things and those of more moment than the controverted Ceremonies are Will they deny the naevi patrum that Divines both Papists and Protestants have observed They have laid aside the osculum that then was called pacis sanctum vel fraternitatatis used presently after Prayer which Tertullian calleth Signaculâ—m orationis the Agapae that notwithstanding of the Apostles check 1 Cor. 11. 21 22. were used in Tertullian's time sometimes before the Lord's Supper sometimes after also the Baptizing if not only yet more ordinarily the day before Easter and Pentecost the Trina immersio the Communio Infantum the Gustatio mellis lactis all used in Baptism in Tertullian's time Of the same sort are the diluting of the Wine with Water in the Lord's Supper the sign of the Cross used in Omni conversatione as Tertullian hath it The carrying the Eulogias or consecrated Symbols to the Sick and others all these in the Second Century In the Third Century were brought in Offerings and Prayers for the Dead and Exorcism in Baptism What a world of Ceremonies were added in the Fourth Century is too well known Now all these were as ancient as the Times of the first Christian Emperors to which the Dr. saith p. 17. that Our Reformers endeavoured to reduce the state of the Church if it was thought fit and no disrespect to the Fathers to reject their practices in some things as innocent as our Ceremonies why not in them also there being no more warant in the Word for the one sort of things than the other This is to make Respect to Antiquity to â—erve a turn or mens own designs which I hope our worthy Reformers were far from whatever may be said of their Successors Sect. 26. Ans. 3. If the Dr. had pleased to tell us how ancient the Ceremonies that he contendeth for are we should have considered his Allegations I am sure he cannot equal them in Antiquity with the Rites above-mentioned which yet his Church rejecteth We affirm them to be Novel Inventions brought in under a considerable tho' not the highest Degeneracy of the Church when we meet with his proofs to the contrary they shall be answered I wonder to hear from such an Antiquary as Dr. Stâ—llingfleet That purging out of these Ceremonies is a Reforming 1600 years backward as if all the controverted Ceremonies or any of them had been in the first Century in the very daies of the Apostles I suppose he will find it a hard Task to prove this By what hath been said it is easie to discover the weakness of what he alledgeth about giving unspeakable Advantage to the Papists by reforming 1600 years backward for neither do we own the Ceremonies to be so old nor could Papists have any advantage if we reject what is unwarranted by the Word however ancient it be Indeed if we should part with Scripture and referr the decision of our Controversies with the Papists only to â—hurch-History it were to give them advantage if we should disown any thing so ancient but I hope the Dr. will not advise us to that course and therefore there is no hazard It addeth to this unspeakable advantage in the Dr's Opinion That when they the Non-conformists are pinched with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity already working in the Apostle's Times as tho' every thing that they disliked were a part of it Ans. Tho' we have hitherto met with none of his pinching Arguments from Antiquity yet we think that Allegation no such ridiculous Evasion as he would make it seeing the Spirit of God was pleased to give us this warning and after-Ages gave a clear proof of the fulfilling of this Scripture by the ripening of those Inclinations that were among some in the Apostles days of falling back to beggarly Elements Gal. 4. 9. and subjecting themselves to mens Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Col. 2. 20 21. into the highest of Superstition and Depravation of the Worship of God as Antichristianism came to a height If the load of humane Traditions were a part of that Mystery of Iniquity that was adult under Antichrist why should we not think that these Beginnings were a part of these first workings of it that the Apostle complaineth of If we make any thing that disliketh us a part of that working Mystery of Iniquity that we cannot prove to
the Church The Bishops shewed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching A few remarks on this will serve to clear our way 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren in that they were getting Laws made to force them to that which they could not perswade them to by the Gospel but this is the Old Spirit of that party which still createth trouble to the Church 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment and these he nameth Gilby Whittingham are among them whom Fuller placeth in the Ranck of fierce Non-conformists sheweth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled 3. He omitteth to tell us that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy nor use the Ceremonies which Mr. Fuller Lib. 9. p. 76. informeth us of that not only these fiery men as he calleth them but even the moderate Non-conformists as Mr. Fox Mr. Lawrence Humfrey refused to subscribe 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops that they suffered these Men to Preach notwithstanding of their Non-conformity Indeed there was cause for it they were able and useful men and the Church had much need of their Labours Fuller saith p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch where no brighter Light was seen before where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work and how sorrily he performed it If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation they needed not to be afraid of Separation Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us that these Non-conformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies and gaining Ground they called them the Livery of Antichrist and enflamed the People and this was the first Occasion of pressing Vniformity with Rigor Some were silenced as kindness had made them Presumptuous this made them Clamorous Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered by their Canons began to shew their Authority in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented before B. Grindal one of the most moderate but pressed to Rigor by the rest who asked them have we not a Godly Princess speak is she Evil A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain than a Protestant Bishop That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies is neither to be doubted nor wondered at so did our Lord and Master and his Apostle Paul It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded that being their Commission if they spake Falshood or Truth in an undue manner they were liable to Correction What our Author calleth inflaming the People others will call faithful warning of them against what might displease God and defile their Consciences Any who enflameth them to unsober or unpeaceable principles or practices let them bear their blame I see nothing in their Carriage under the Bishops forbearing of them that deserâ—eth the Name of presumption nor under their Sufferings that should be called Clamorousness as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva how they were used But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them that differ from them and reproach them if they say they feel it Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists or free the Bishops of it Sect. 32. He saith further p. 19. at the end About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers began to have separate Meetings where they Preached and Prayed and had the Sacraments Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary the true Cause and Original of the Separation tho' somewhat unfavourably represented the cause of it was they could not have Gods Ordinances without Mans Inventions their Ministers being silenced who administred them purely and tho' but some of them at first were silenced yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced nor could they live without them So that it was not Exasperation but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances that made them take that course This account of it themselves give as the Dr. hath it p. 20. before the Bishop of London whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal charging them with lying pretences without any Ground mentioned and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop charging them with Condemning the Reformation Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on is Beza's advice to the Ministers and people who tho' he sheweth his dislike of the Ceremonies and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen and the Bishops And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments notwithstanding of the Ceremonies that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation And to Ministers he saith that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not not being able at present to get a sight of the Book but some other Citations already examined make me jealous especially seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them that the Ceremonies are not of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them But whatever were Beza's opinion Non-conformists of old and late took the Word of God and not the Authority of Men for the Rule of their Faith and Practice They honour such as Beza and are ready to receive Instruction from them but must have leave to examine all by Scripture as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul. Again Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together because restrain'd by the Magistrate That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines and is to be examined afterward but he disliked their publick appearance in that case which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate For they had hired a Hall in London as publick as any Church for their Meetings Christ's Apostles were private with the Doors shut when they might not be publick and so should we and yet not give over
but held it for an Antichristian Sociâ—ty and therefore not to be communicated with Aâ—d that of the Independents who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches but thought it unlawful to join with them because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints that was among them Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists and that of the second by the Assembly of Divines and other Presbyteriâ—ns Both these were active separation chosen by the separating Parties and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church that aâ—e indefensible But our Separation if it may be so called is passâ—ve we are driven away we seek the Communion of our Brethren we are willing to bear wiâ—h many things that are a Burden to us and which we wish to be reformed rather than have Separate Meetings We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ the Petition for Peace is a publick and authentick witness of all this but our Brethren will have no Communion with us unless we will own the Ceremonies that they without any warrant from Scripture impose on us which we cannot do without sinning against God and wounding our Consciences and we can and do give good Reâ—son and Scripture-warrant for this our Scruple Let then any Indifferent Person judge Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the publick Worship of the Church by the Authority of them who condemned these fore-mentioned Separations But occaâ—â—on will be given to discourse this Matter further wherefore I now forbâ—ar Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi running through the whole Texture of it and that it doth not tâ—uch the Question in hand but I shall take a more particular yet transient view of it He saith Sect. 8. at the beginning The Separation being now bâ—gâ—n the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemenâ—y against it If the Dr. would prove any thing against us he must shew That there was no forbearing of publick Ordinances on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists before this the contrary of which I have shewed Also That it was Separation on that account and no other that they wrote against the contrary of which is most evident He may know that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation and can make it appear that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice It seemeth by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker that the Separation was charged on him as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles just as it is now with us If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride the two Characters given by Parker to the Separatists let the Guilty bear their blame But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with import no such thing and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general is not Brotherly dealing We love not to recriminate Sect. 9. He alledgeth p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood against the Separation Three of them were taken out of the Admonition given in by the Non-conformists to the Parliament He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were as very ridiculous men who laid down Reasons for Separation and yet were so much against other mens practising what they gave Reason for If he think them such men why would he bind us to their Authority which is the tendency of this long Discourse But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter His Mistake is In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances to be redressed not as Grounds of Separation His Misrepresentation is These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry Government and Worship as wholly unlawful antichristian and false for they owned the Ministry and Worship whatever thoughts they had of the Government as right for the substance tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them which they desired to be removed It is true Gilford saith they make a vile Schism rending themselves from the Church of England but doth he not add And condemning by their Assertioâ—s the whole visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time Which sheweth that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with but nullifying of Churches because of some Corruptions in them Gilford's words that follow p. 29. we are not concerned in We know that many were the sad effects of that Separation diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion to Janglings And it is not without this effect on some where the oppressed Party is Innocent as to the main but that proveth not that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies to shun this Evil but that they should not be imposed on us As to Gilford's blaming them for not coming to the Book-Prayers this he spake without Book either in the heat of Disputation in which many do over-reach or it was his Opinion but is not ours I agree with Gilford That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian not we who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship That Gilford was a Non-conformist the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove That all Non-conformists are fallible men and some of them mistaken in some things we willingly grant We also close with what his next Author saith p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church where he is by Providence placed and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church only with this Exception Unless that Church require me to sin and if I will not do so exclude me Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention that not belonging to the thing then controverâ—ed It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases not yet thought on may afford The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard and the Confutation of the Errours of the Separatists dâ—ne in name of the Non-conformists so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor 's is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 10. He thinketh Sect. 9. to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies with the Separation of the Brownists for if that be not desigâ—ed I know not what his Discourse tendâ—th to by setting down the concessions of these Separatists to wit That the Doctrine of the Church of England is sound and saving that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church So far we agree But they pleaded saith he that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such as overthrew the
reckoned among them Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy at his pleasure we can bear it In this we are Murus Aheneus in the Poets Seâ—se Sect. 13. He telleth us p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson the Foâ—nder as he maketh him of the Independent way who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer He should have told us who these are It is true they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too by denying us all Church Privileges for not submitting to the Impositions and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances where we can have them in his way but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice This Discourse against the Independent Separation I meddle not with and therefore pass over all that he saith from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages What Mr. Câ—n saith p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation is so far True that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies doth inferr on them who act conscientiously that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church than own the one or use the other And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions a Word the Dr. is very angry with because unordained men were not suffered to Preach when and where they listed is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions when they are Excluded the Church for not using Humane Ceremonies In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture no imposing in the other That is imposed to be done which is without warrant yea condemned in Scripture Such mean â—rtifices the Dr. reacheth at that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill in the VVorship of God. p. 58 he saith Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience Who ever said otherwise or can say otherwise unless they would first burn their Bibles We never made Conscience the Rule it must be guided and ruled by Scripture What he saith of Popular Government let them answer it who are concerned He saith Humorous and Factious People will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions This Title of Mr. A's Book is a great Eye-sore to him but he should consider that on the other hand an Imperious Superstitious Clergy that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance in dispite of the Apostles Words will always be Imposing and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious He saith the Principles of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead men into Confusion Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions are more like to lead Divines into Confusion in managing their polemick Discourses Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience Hath Conscience no use but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will or what the Act of Parliament saith We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience as the Dr. is but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience is liker to lead Men into Atheism than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion Let Conscience then have Liberty where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion where they that profess Conscience are otherwise sober and peaceable and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience It is a more innocent thing where it is rightly dealt with than the Dr. taketh it to be and we think it is more to be regarded than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising It is false that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants as to the pretence of Conscience nor they the Anabaptists For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes because of their Conscience Sect. 14. He telleth us Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren with being the occasion of an inundation of Error by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience I am far from justifying that Toleration which the Independants pleaded for and which by their means some say was used in our late times of Distraction Then there was no King in our Israel All Error should be opposed Gross Error punished and restrained by force But will it hence follow that we must not have leave to Dissent even from those things that the Church imposeth without Warrant from the Lord All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth p. 59 60 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration The Vniformity in Religion that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of is not to be understood of Words in Prayers and Humane Ceremonies for would they not then have first setled that way at home but of Doctrine and Discipline and Worship so far as commanded by Christ. Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates that were between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship but what was commanded They left the Church for supposed Corruptions which were none of their personal fault nor were they put under a necessity of approving them VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin if we should do them But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates p. 73 74. The 1st is That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look on Separation from it as Sin notwithstanding its Corruptions This he thinketh he hath so proved that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed and with what measure of clearness let others judge also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters hath been shewed The 2d Conclusion is That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church to go so far as they were able So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful is
form of worship and if there be where is it forbidden but in this Commandment Or let him give us any reason why Humane Inventions relating to the manner and form of worship are not forbidden as well as these that relate to the way of it A Reason indeed he pretendeth to give Otherwise saith he all Vse of Mens inventions as to preaching reading interpreting Scripture would be forbidden and then this interpretation of the second Command would be unlawful because it is a meer invention of Man as much as Liturgies and Ceremonies If this be to reason like a Divine or to quibble like a Sophister let the Reader judge for the Invention that men make use of in preaching c. is the act or exercise of their faculties whereby they find out the mind of God The inventions in God's worship that we â—ow debate about are Objects found out by Men not commanded by God. If Men devise unrevealed Objects in Reading Preaching c. we condemn them in that as well as in devising ways of worshipping God And if the Dr. mean that this exposition of the second Commandment is an invention of Man that is the exercise of his inventive Faculty whereby he findeth out the Mind of God he speaketh wide from the purpose when he compareth that with things that men devise to worship God by If he mean That the Interpretation is only devised not warranted let him prove that and we shall reject it Sect. 12. I hope by this time the impartial Reader may judge whether we stretch and force Scripture to condemn Liturgies and Ceremonies as the Dr. saith or he doth so to defend them That he imputeth to us blinding and fettering our minds by Education and reading but one sort of Books and taking things for granted which we ought not we resolve to bear patiently and must accept of these instead of better Arguments to refute our Principle His instance of the deniers of Infant-Baptism proveth fully that the Schism doth not alwaies lie on the Imposer's side tho' they separate from us because of our using it without considering imposing it on them VVho of them have been excommunicated for not using it as we are for forbearing the Ceremonies If men will separate because the Ordinances of God are imposed on them let them answer it we scruple only the Ordinances of Man Neither did we ever say that the blame of separation doth in all câ—ses lie on the Imposers And we confess that where imposâ—d Terms of Communion are scrupled through mistake they that separate on that scruple do sin And we yield also to him that not the pretence of Conscience but sufficient proof of the unlawfulness of the Terms of Communion is a good ground of Separation and we still desire that the matter may be put to that issue Sect. 13. He proceedeth next to set â—orth the principles of them who hold all Acts of Communion with the Church of England unlawful of them he hath little to say their mind as he saith being easily discovered and we are not concerned in that opinion and therefore shall not insist on it Only I see not on what grounds the Dr. nameth the Author of the Book called Jerubbaal as one that is against the lawfulness of hearing the conforming Ministers preach for that Author 〈◊〉 p. 12. of himself and others whom Mr. C. had charged with Schism because they could not communicate with Her in the Liturgy that they joined with Her in the instituted VVorship and substantial Ordinances of Christ as Prayer Hearing of the Word preached singing of Psalms c. SECT IV. The Dr's stating of the Question Examined and the Question truly Stated THE several Principles of the Dissenters having been examinedâ— the Dr. now proceedeth to state the Question about Separation Some think this should have been done before examining of the Principles on which men separate but the Dr. must use his own method and we must follow him in examining what he saith He giveth us Sect. 15. his Concessions which I shall say little of save to make a Remark on one or two of them And 1. His third Concession is He can allow different modes of Worship in Cathedral and Parochial Churches in publick and private Administrations these being allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live but What is this saith he to the denying of constant Communion with our Churches to the chusing of new Pastors It is true these are two different things the difference is the one is allowed by the Church the other not so But consider the things in themselves and abstracted from the Churches pleasure and there will appear to be as little Vniformity between Cathedral and Parochial Worship as between their Parochial Worship and that used in the Meetings of the Dissenters Now we gladly would know of the Dr. or any of his Party seeing the Church can yield so far to Parochial Assemblies as not to tie them to the same Modes with Cathedral Assemblies because they cannot go to the expence of it And seeing the Church dispenseth with crossing in prâ—vate Baptism why may She not condescend so far to the Dissenters who cannot for their Consciences use these things and so shun this Breach in the Church this denying of Communion with their Churches and chusing of new Pastors Are the Consciences of men so little to be regarded or Is it fit the Church should be so imperious over her Members as that She will indulge Mens Purses but not their Consciences She will dispense with the sign of the Cross for Her pleasure but not for peoples consciences when they can shew good reason for what they think and make conscience of This is wholly unaccountable and very inconsistent with those high pretentions that our Brethren make of regard to Peace and Unity Sect. 2. Another remark I make of his 4th Concession That the Church alloweth a different mode of Worship to Foreign Churches set up in England because they break not off Communion with the Church of England as they do who were Baptized in it But why may not the Church be as kind to her own Members as to Strangers if the Ceremonies be necessary why should the neglect of them be permitted to any If unnecessary why should they be forced on mens Consciences to the Rending of the Church The breaking off of Communion that he talketh of may be prevented by this Condescendency and therefore it is most unreasonable to charge us with that as a Sin which we are under a Necessity to do for shunning the wounding of our Consciences and sinning against God and which they might as easily prevent by shewing us that Favour that they shew to others I take notice also of his 6th Concession That it was no sinful Separation to keep up the Exercise of True Religion under Arians against the will of the Magistrate But what is this to our Case where true Doctrine is taught It is very much to our Case for
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should
Apostles Others that it is wholly indifferent and may be received or not as is thought most expedient in several times and places and some of these say this is to be determined by the Church Others by the Magistrate This Dr. Stillingfleet in his Irenicum asserteth but is very uncertain whether the Church or Magistrate is to determine in this matter One of the most Learned of our Adversaries Dr. Hammond holdeth the Divine Right of Episcopacy but goeth away different from all the rest in managing of that Opinion to wit that all the ordinary Pastors of the Church appointed by Christ or ordained by the Apostles were Diocesan Bishops and that Presbyters are a sort of Men unheard of in the New Testament and their Office but a device of Men or a constitution of the Church This fancy is solidly refuted by learned Mr. Durham on Rev. 3. p. 230. Where the Reader may see abundant ground of Satisfaction about the absurdity and inconsistency of this Notion from Scripture Reason and Antiquity Sect. 6. The question between us and our brethren being about the lawfulness of the prelacy now exercised in England the owning of which is required of us that we may judge aright of it we must have a true Idea of it and then consider whether such an Episcopacy was instituted by Christ practised in the primitive Church with general approbation or whether it hath any rational Foundation to stand upon The true Idea of our English Episcopacy is visible in these Lineaments of it First The Bishop is one of a Superior Order to and distinct Office from other Presbyters as appeareth not only from the power he hath and they have not and acts of Church-power reserved only to him but also because he is put into that Office by an ordination distinct from that by which he is made a Presbyter And yet further because the Presbyters are owned but as his Delegates or Curates and he is owned as the sole Pastor of all the Presbyters People and Flocks in the Diocess Secondly The Bishops have jurisdiction over other Presbyters Thirdly He hath the sole Power of Ordination of Presbyters Fourthly He may delegate this Power to whom he will whether Men Ordained to the Ministry or any of the people so that by this Delegation a Man that is no Church-Officer may exercise Church-Power over both Ministers and People Fifthly This power is exercised in the name of the Magistrate the Courts in which it is exercised being owned as the Kings Ecclesiastical Court. Sixthly They are not chosen to this Office by the Church but by the Magistrate and they are not Preaching but Ruling Bishops Now if our Brethren cannot shew us such a Bâ—shop as this in Scripture or Antiquity all that they say from either for an Episcopacy is short of the thing in question and our scruple cannot be taken away by their proofs for Episcopacy unless they prove this Episcopacy Sect. 7. Though our Writers have brought Arguments against the lawfulness of this Office in the Church that have never yet been answered and I think never shall and tho' I can promise no new nor better Arguments than have been already adduced by others yet that the Reader may see that our Scruples against Episcopacy are not without good ground I shall briefly set down some Arguments against it The first shall be ad hominem against our learned Author By this Author's Doctrine there is no ground to believe that such an Episcopacy as consisteth in a Superiority of Power above Presbyters was Instituted Allowed or Exercised in the Church Ergo according to him it hath no Foundation at all that can satisfie ones Conscience about the lawfulness of it The Antithesis I prove If such a ground there be it must lie in one of these three if any asserters of it can add a fourth we shall quit this Argument either Christs appointing it in Scripture or his allowing Men to appoint such an Office or the practice of the Church shewing us what was Christs allowance But none of these yield us a Warrant for Episcopacy all the three being denyed by this Author to be able to satisfie the Conscience in this matter For the first he denyeth such an Institution asserting expresly that Christ gave equal power to all the Ordinary Ministers of the Gospel this is the basis of his Irenicum The second he never had the confidence to assert neither is the least hint in all the Scripture that Christ hath allowed Men to take away that power from his Servants that He hath given them and to put it into the hand of others to whom He never gave such eminency of power For the third he proveth at length that the primitive form of Church-Government is uncertain from the Defectiveness Ambiguity Partiality and Repugnancy of the Records of the Ages that succeeded the Apostles times Iren. c. 6. p. 294. Let him tell us then what ground we have to belive that Episcopacy was Instituted by Christ practised by the Church in Her uncorrupted times or any way allowed Sect. 8. Our second Argument is There is no foot-step of any inequality of power among these Ordinary Pastors of the Church that are mentioned in the Bible neither in their Name nor Office nor Power nor Work nor Qualifications nor Respect or Obedience due to them nor any thing else from which any distinction can be rationally gathered whence I thus Argue If the Lord had allowed a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters in his Church he would have hinted some thing about this distinction but this he hath not done Ergo c. The first proposition I prove first Because this was needful for these distinct Officers that each might know his work And for the Church-Guides that they might know how to chuse and ordain qualified Men for so different Imployments And for the people that they might know how to carry toward these Officers respect according to the difference of their Stations that they might obey the Bishop rather than the Presbyter and submit to the Teaching of the Presbyter and ruling of the Bishop that they might not come to a Presbyter for Confirmation nor call Presbyters to ordain a Minister for them nor delegate a person that deserveth Excommunication to the Presbyters all these belonging to the Bishop 2. Our Lord hath made a clear distinction in Scripture among the other Ordinary Officers in the Church in their Names Qualifications Work and Office as between Elders or Bishops and Deacons Phil. 1. 1. 1 Tim. 3. 2 9. Also between Preaching Elders and those that are only Ruling Elders 1 Tim. 5. 17. If our Brethren can shew us as much for a distinction between Bishops and Presbyters let them do it I hope none of them will say that by Ruleing Elders is here meant the Bishop least it follow that the Preaching Presbyter should rather be honoured than he either by affording him more respect or maintenance I suppose our Bishops will rather
part with the Patrimony of this Text then with their Titles Grandeur and Revenues Sect. 9. The second Proposition is evident in the several Branches mentioned before for our Adversaries can produce no hint of any such distinction in Scripture and we can shew an identity in them And first for the name it is clear from Act. 20. 28. where the Apostle calleth all the Elders of Ephesus Bishops It is a groundless fancy of some that these Elders were the Diocesan Bishops of Asia for this is said without any shew of proof to serve a turn Besides that they are called the Elders of the Church not Churches as even in the prelatical Stile Diocesan districts should be called And it is called the Flock not Flocks and the Church of God not the Churches of God that they were to take heed to and the haste that the Apostle then was in considering the short time and long journey that he had before him was inconsistent with his expecting such an Assembly from so remote parts This identity of name is also clear from Phil. 1. 1. for no reason can be assigned why Deacons should be mentioned as concerned in what was written in that Epistle and not Presbyters Also it is most clear Tit. 1. 5. with 7. where shewing how Elders must be qualified a reason is given why they must have such Qualifications for a Bâ—shop must be Blameless if they were not one this reason should have neither force nor sence which were Blasphemy to averr it being the Holy Ghosts reasoning Sect. 10. In the next place Scripture maketh no distinction between the Office of Bishop and Presbyter many of our brethren deny a distinction of Office betwixt them how consistently with their other principles I enquire not and they that assert such a distinction cannot shew the least foot-step of it from Scripture Thirdly for their power if Bishops ordained so did Presbyters 1 Tim. 4. 14. If any alledge that the ordainers of Timothy were Diocesan Bishops they must prove it If Bishops had rule over the people were over them so were Presbyters 1 Thes. 5. 12. Heb. 13. 17. For none question but Presbyters are they who mainly labour among the people admonish them and watch for their Souls I am sure this is not the work that our Bishops are exercised in and the same persons in both places are the peoples Rulers and are over them Fourthly Their Work is the same as is clear both from the places last cited and Act. 20. 28. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. Where taking heed to feeding and over-seeing in the Greek acting the part of Bishops 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are made the work of all the Pastors of the Church 5. The same qualifications are required in all the guides of the Church without any distinction 1 Tim. 3. 2. Tit. 1. 5. And the qualification of Deacons they being a distinct sort of Officers in the Church are set down by themselves 1 Tim. 3. 8. Sixthly for Obedience Reverence Maintenance or any thing else that concerneth a Bishop as distinct from a Presbyter there is not the least hint in Scripture from which any such thing can be gathered a Man must then put force upon his reason or be strangely swaâ—ed by prejudice who can perswade himself that there is an ordinary Officer mentioned or allowed in the New Testament that is above the Presbyters of the Church or hath jurisdiction over them Sect. 11. Argument third The Apostle doth thrice set down a list of the several Officers of the Gospel-Church without mentioning a Diocesan Bishop or any Officer to which this Office can be rationally reduced Ergo no such Officer ought to be allowed in the Church The consequence I prove first Because this should have been a defect not imputable to the Apostle infallibly guided by the Spirit to teach us designedly the several Church-Officers appointed by Christ and not tell us of them all Let our brethren if they can give us an instance of a defectiveness in any Scriptureinstruction of this moment that can be parallelled with this Secondly The consequence can yet less be questioned if we considâ—r that not only an Officer is left out and the Church left without a hint concerning him but the chief ordinary Officer in the Church that should make the greatest Figure in the Church to the end of the World and on whose management the weightiest affairs of the Church should depend He who can believe this his Judgment must be under the power of so strong a Byass that I know not what will be too hard for him to Swallow the Antithesis I prove out of 1 Cor. 12. 28. Eph. 4. 11. Rom. 12. 6 7 8. Not any of these Offices agreeth to the Diocesan Bishop some say they are reducible to Apostles With what face can wise men alledge this Was not the Office of an Apostle extraordinary and temporary appointed for the first dispersing the Gospel and planting Churches and besides every Apostle was an Universal Officer Diocesans have their limitted charges Some alledge they are reducible to Apostles not as being absolutely such but because they have power over inferior Ministers as the Apostles had But these men should prove that Christ instituted such an Office or that the Apostle meant not only extraordinary Apostlâ—s but these Semi-Apostles as ordinary Officers to continue in the Church Secondly They should prove that Christs instituting Apostles did warrant the Church to set up an Office made up of as much of the Apostles Office as should be afterward thought convenient What may not men devise in the Church that take on them thus to add to or diminish from Christs Institutions and thus to wrest Scripture to make it comply with their fancies and interests Sect. 12. Others make the Doctors or Teachers Eph. 4. 11. to be the Bishops and this with as little ground as the former though some learned Men have so dreamed as Estius and Doctor Hammon Grotius thinks Metropolitans also are here meant but the absurdity of this fancy will appear First If we consider that they are named after the Pastors or Presbyters which is an indecency unâ—uitable to the Apostles Exactness if my Lord Bishop weâ—e here meant I find many Interpreters argue that Prophets are the next in Dignity to Apostles and are extraordinary Officers because they are named alwaies next after the Apostles which Argument will as well hold here Secondly The work of the Bishop that we speak of which discriminateth him from the Presbyter is not to Teach but to Rule Therefore others as Calvin by Teacher understandeth him that educateth Ministers and instructeth them and others in the truth and defendeth it against Heresies such as are Divinity Professors in Universities others understand Catechists But it is evident that it cannot with any kind of Congruity be applied to the Diocesan Bishop who is least imployed in Teaching of any part of Church-Work some find the Diocesan Bishop under the name of Helps 1
Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
them own such an Office in the Church The first Testimony that I bring is that of Jerome who giveth his Judgment of this matter not Obiâ—er but of set purpose as that which was his setled Opinion and that oftner than â—nce In his Epistle to Euagrius where he sharply reproveth some as Impudent that preferred Deacons to Presbyters i. e. saith he to Bishâ—ps but sheweth at length that Bishops and Prebyters are the same for which he citeth Phil. 1. 1. Act. 20. 28. Tit. 1. 5 6 7. 1 Tim. 4. 14. 1 Pet. 5. 1 2. and if any should think little of these Testimonies he addeth clanget tuba Evangâ—lâ—j filius toniâ—ru c. and so citeth 2 Joh. ver 1. and 3. Joh. v. 1. and after he hath shewed the occasion of preferring one Presbyter to the rest he telleth that notwithstanding of their Riches or Poverty Greatness or Meanness the difference of Cities where they are sive Romae sive Eâ—gâ—bij sive Constantinopoli c. they are ejusdem meriti Sacerdotii and sheweth that the Apostle giving direction to Timothy and Titus about Ordination of Bishops and Deacons saith nothing of Presbyters because the Presbyter is contained in the Bishop that is they are the same What may seem to make against our cause in this Epistle is that he saith quod autem unus electus quem caeteris praeponeretur id in Schismatis remedium factum which he saith was ne unusquisque Ecclesiam ad se trahens Christi ecclesiam rumperet which was done saith he in Alexandria a Marci Temporibus This may well be undeâ—stood of a Moderator of their Meetings who had power of Convening the Presbyters least every one might call a Meeting of them at his pleasure and so breed confusion and it must be so understood not of a Bishop with sole jurisdiction unless we will make Jerom to contradict the whole strain and design of this Epistle Another passage is quid enim facit Episcopus praeâ—er Ordinationem quod non facit Presbyter Which cannot be understood of Ordination or sâ—le Ordination of Presbyters for that were to make a material difference between Bishop and Presbyter which is directly contrary to his whole Discourse but Ordination here must be ordering of their Meetings which is the part of the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or Moderatâ—r One might also alledge that in the Writings of this learned Father a passage Obiter set down is not to be taken notice of in prejudice of the Scope and Strain of hâ—s Discourse tho' they be â—nâ—â—nsistent and might ground this allegation on the account that he giveth of his own Writings and cited also by Dr. Stillingflâ—et Ireniouâ—â— p. 278. Itaqâ—e ut simpliciter fatear legi haec omnia in meâ—â—e mea plurima conservans accito notario vel mea vel aliena dictavi nec ordinis nec verborum interdum nec sensuum meinor Sect. 16. Another Testimony is also out of Jerom câ—mment in Tit. 1. where he insisteth at length on the same subject and asserteâ—h the same opinion as before Idem ergo saith he Presbyter qui Episcopus antequam diaboli instinctu studia in religione fierent diceretur in populis Ego sum Pauli ego Appollo ego Cephae alluding to the Schism mentioned 1 Cor. 3. not meaning it in particular as some fansy Communi Presbyterorum concilio ecclesia gubernabatur postquam vero unusquisque eos quos Baptizaverat suos putabat esse non Christi toto orbe decretum est Vt unus de Presbyteris electis superponeretur reliquis ad quem omnis ecclesiae cura pertineret ut Schismatum semina tolerentur and for proof of the Identity of Bishop and Presbyter he citeth many Scriptures as above and sheweth that Bishop denoteth the Office Presbyter the Age. He citeth also Heb. 13. 17. Ibi saith he equaliter inter plures ecclesiae cura dividitur And after he sheweth the difference between Bishop and Presbyter to be magis consuetudine quam dispositionis dominicae veritate And in conclusion of that discourse making a Transition to the qualities that the Text mentioneth saith videamus igitur qualis Presbyter sive Episcopus ordinandus sit What Jerom saith toto orbe decretum est is not to be understood of the Decree of an Oecumenick Council for no such Decree can be produced but that this Remedy of Schism in many places began then to be thought on and it was no wonder that this Corruption began then to creep in it being then about the end of the Fourth Century when Jerom wrote And this remedy Jerom declareth was not of God's but of Mans inventing and accordingly it succeeded for it proved worse than the Disease bringing in Tyranny and overturning Christ's Institution and at last setting up the Man of Sin. Satan gave the occasion to it as Jerom saith Man gave a Being to it and Satan improved it to carry on his designs The omnis eccleâ—iae cura that he mentioneth is inconsistent with the cura inter plures aequaliter divisa which he saith was the way of the Gospel and therefore either we must make Jerom say That the practice in his days was a direct overturning of Christ's Institution and contrary to Apostolick practice which will make the way of the Primitive Church and Writings of the Fathers to be no good Commentary upon the institution and way of the Apostles times and so destroy the Argument that our Brethren insist most upon for Episcopacy or we must expound this omnis cura of the extent of it to the whole Church not of the solitude of it in one Man excluding the rest of the Presbyters that he had a special inspection though he might not exercise Discipline by himself Sect. 17. A third Testimony out of Jerom is Ep. ad Heliodorum Fol. mihi 283. speaking of the Dignity of a Presbyter and shewing that they have power to consecrate the Eucharist they have claves Regni Coelorum quodammodo diem judicij indicant and then addeth Illi Presbytero si peccavero licet tradere me Satanae Sure then he is not for sole jurisdiction of a Bishop And this he speaketh of the principle and practice of his time which confirmeth what I said before of the meaning of Omnis cura ecclesiae There is yet another place in Jerom that is plain to this purpose Ep. ad Demet Sunt quos ecclesia reprehendit quos interdum abjicit in quos nonnunquam Episcoporum Clericorum censura desaevit which clearly putteth the Censures of the Church in his days into the Hands of Presbyters and not into the Hands of Bishops only whatever Priority they had above the other It is worth our Observation that several Popish Writers as zealous for Prelacy as ours are confess such light in the Writings of Jerom to this purpose that they find no way to Answer but to Condemn him of Error in this matter And Bellarm. de clericis lib. 1. c. 15.
confesseth that Sedulius Anselmus ad verbum retulerunt Hieronymi sententiam In Comment in Tit. 1. If any reject the Testimony of Jerom because he was a Presbyter and no Bishop I hope they will allow us the like liberty to reject the Testimonies that they bring of them who themselves were Bishops and then let them reckon their Gain when the Suffrages of the Ancients are brought to the Poll. Sect. 18. Other Testimonies I shall mention more briefly Tertul. Apolog. c. 34. speaking of Excommunications and other Censures saith they are done in the Assemblies and that praesident probati quique seniores Clem. Alexandr Stromat lib. 7. poenes Presbyteros est disciplinae quae homines facit meliores Both these wrote in the beginning of the Third Century Wherefore Discipline in that Age was exercised in common and every Assembly had its president with power of Discipline Ambrosius who wrote in the end of the Fourth Century when no little Deviation had been made from the right way yet sheweth the Church could not then bear sole jurisdiction for a Sentence pass'd by Syagrius was disliked quia sine alicujus fratris consilio But Ambrose passing Sentence in the same cause was approved quia cum fratribus consacerdotibus participatum processit Ambros Ep. ad Syagrium And even Cyprian as great an Asserter of Episcopal Primacy as that age could bear Ep. 12. 46. joineth the Clergy with the Bishop in receiving the Lapsed on their Repentance I next adduce the learned and excellent Augustine as a Witness of this Truth Ep. 19. ad Hieron Quamquam enim honorum vocabula quae jam ecclesiae usu obtinuit Episcopus Presbytero major sit He maketh the Bishop Major not Lord over the Presbyter and even that Majority was but by the Custom of the Church not divine Ordinance and a custom that had now obtained was not always Also lib. quaest com he proveth from 1 Tim. 3. Bâ—shop and Presbyter to be one and saith quâ—d est enim Episcopus nisi Presbyter and this Oâ—eness he further sheweth because Bishops such as then were to wit in the beginning of the Fifth Century when the Order of the Church was much changed called the Presbyters Compresbyteri but never called the Deacons Condiaconi Presbyter and Bishop being the same Office but Deacons being distinct from them both The last Testimony shall be that of Chrysostom in 1 Tim. 3. homil 11. Inter Episco um atque Presbyterum interest fere nihil quippe Presbyteris ecclesiae cura permissa est quae de Episcopis dicuntur eae etiam Presbyteris congruunt sola quippe ordinatione superiores illâ— sunt Bellarm. saith that Primasius Theophilactus and Oecumenius on that Text teach the same things and almost in the same words And the Second of these lived in the end of the Ninth Century the last in the Tenth or Eleventh The Answer that Bellarm. giveth to this is not worth taking notice of to wit Chrysost. meaneth that Presbyters have jurisdiction as Bishops have but only by Commission from the Bishop This is directly contrary to the Scope of his Discourse which is to shew an Identity of them as they are in themselves What he alledgeth out of this Citation that a Bishop may ordain not a Presbyter the learned Father's expression will not bear for Ordination must signifie either the Ordination the Bishop and Presbyter have whereby they are put in their Office to be different which he doth not alledge or that the difference between them was only in order or precedency not in Power or any Authority or that it was by the Ordination or appointment of the Church not Christ's Institution but it can never signifie the power of ordaining for then Christ who was sufficiently a Master of words would have said potestate ordinandi not Ordinatione Sect. 19. I conclude this one ground of scruple at the present Episcopacy with 3 Considerations which tho they be not â—oncludent in themselves being but humane Testimonies yet may abate a little of our brethrens confidence in asserting their Opinion about Bishops to have always been the sentiments of the Catholick Church The 1 is That Lombard and most of the School-Men deny the distinction of Bishops and Presbyters lib. 4. dist 24. liter I. He telleth us that the Canons do only mention the orders of Presbyters and Deacons because the primitive Church had only these and of these only we have the Apostles Commandment the rest were after appointed by the Church And ibid. litera M. he sheweth that the orders of Bishop Arch-Bishop c. the Church borrowed from the distinction of the Heathen Flamins Horum autem disoretio saith he a gentilibus introducta videtur Both Cajetan on Tit. 1. and Estius on the place of Lombard now cited deny the Divine Right of Episcopacy The 2 Consideration is That the Waldenses Albigenses Wickliff and his Followers and all they that under the darkness of Popery maintained the same Doctrinâ—s that the Protestants now profess were of a Parity among Presbyters and disallowed of Diocesan Bishops This is confessed by Medina and is not denyed by Bellarm and any that read what is written of their Opinions will acknowledge this it is among Wickliff's Errors imputed to him by Tho. Waldensis that in the Apostles times there were only 2 Orders Priests and Deacons and that a Bishop doth not differ from a Priest Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 4. cent 14. p. 132. Let not any impute this to their persecuted State for we know Papists have always had their Titular Bishops where their Religion was suppressed The third thing that I offer to be considered is The observation of Spanhemius a most diligent searcher into the History of the Ancient Church in his Epitom Isagâ—g ad Hist. N. T. saeculo 2. V. 5. Where he moveth a doubt whether then there was Episcopus Praeses only in the greater Churches whether it was only Praesidentia Ministerii non imperii as Tertul. de pudicitia c. 25. or only a reverence to their age and their conversing with the Apostles and whether it did not with the defection of after ages receive addition SECT IV. The Dr's Arguments for Episcopacy Answered I Return now to the reverend Dr. to hear what he will say for this Episcopacy that we scruple on the forementioned grounds I begin with his first undertaking above mentioned to wit to shew That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same in substance which was in the Primitive Church And this he laboureth to prove concerning the African Churches in the times of Cyprian and Augustine and the Church of Alexandria in the time of Athanasius and of the Church of Cyprus in the days of Theodoret. Concerning all this in general I make two observations before I come to examine his particular Allegations 1. That his phrase is ambiguous that their Episcopacy was the same in Substance with ours I wish he had shewed what is that Substance of Diocesan Episcopacy that he findeth
say the peoples action is also included in the force of the Word to wit their Voteing by lifting up their hands which in no reason can be applied to the Apostles being but two men the mater needed not such a way of Voteing between them I conclude this being done 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in every Church the people respective chusing their Pastors and the Apostles Ordaining them it is clear to have been generally the practice of these times and so the Institution of Chirst Sect. 5. Argument 2. The Apostles were so careful yea rather the Lord was so careful to preserve this right in Election or ordinary Officers that when Men for extraordinary Work were to be sent forth the Peoples choice was not neglected Hence two were chosen by the Multitude and presented to the Lord that by Lot the Lord might chuse one of them to be an Apostle Successor to Judas Act. 1. 23. and Matthias being chosen by Lot it is said of him ver 26 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he was reckoned by Votes among the Apostles and Act. 13. 1 2. the Lord chused Barnabus and Paul for a special Service but he would have the Votes of the Church for it If the Lord thus condescended to take the present consent in such a matter is it fit for Bishops or Patrons to neglect them and obtrude Men upon them whether they will or not Argument 3d. When ever any extraordinary piece of work I mean such as was not daily exercise was to be put into the Hands of Ministers without a special Revelation they were chosen to it by the Suffrages of the People as appeareth by Act. 15. 22. where Judas and Silas are sent to Antiech about carrying the Decrees of the Synod at Jerusalem and backing them with their Doctrine So 2 Cor. 8. 19. 23. Some are chosen by the Churches to accompany Paul in carrying a Collection to the Jews in Judea and are called the Messengers of the Churches Argument 4th The Deacons were appointed to be chosen by the People 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 also the other Church Officers see Act. 6. 2 3. It is a frivolous Answer that it doth not follow that they should chuse their Pastors because they may chuse the Distributers of their Benevolence For 1. both are Church Officers instituted by Christ In this then they are alike 2. It were a less matter that people were imposed on in this lesser concern than in that of greater consequence and if the Lord have taken care that they should be satisfied about the one much more that they should be satisâ—ied about the other Sect. 6. Our 5th Argument is from the concurrent Testimony of the purer primitive times which we the rather use because our Brethren lay so much weight on this for the Power of Bishops it should not be neglected by them in the matter of Election and that of other Church Officers Also because nothing of Church-Ordâ—r is more clearly and frequently and unanimously in the Writings of the Ancients nor did longer continue untaken away even in the degenerate Ages of the Church so that we may reckon Patronages and obâ—ruding Ministers on the People among the Novelties of Popery I shall in the first place bring some Canons of Council for this Theoderet mentioneth an Epistle from the Famous Council of Nice to a Church in Egypt in which are these words Dignum est vos potestatem habere eligendi quem libet eorum nomine dandi quem clero St. Digni And after si quum vero conâ—igerit requiescere in Ecclesia tunc pro vehim honorem defuncti eos quem nuper Assumpti St. solummodi si videantur digni populus eos Elegerit The Synod Constantinopolit in an Ep. to Damasus and others shew that they had ordained Nectarius cuncta decernente pariter civetate and that they had ordained Flavianus omni Ecclesia parriter decernente Hist. inpert lib. 9. c. 14. Also 4. Carthagin cau 1. It is required that a Bishop be Ordained cum omni consensu Clericorum Laicorum Concil 3. Carthag can 22. Nullus ordinâ—tur Clericus sine Episcopi examinatione populi Testimonio Also the Tenth Canon of Council Cabilonens which was in the midle of the Seventh Century hath these words as they are in Caranz Summa Concil Signis Epâ—scopus de quacunque Civitate fuerit defunctus non ab aliis nisi a com provinicialibus clero civibus suis alterius habeatur electio sin autem aliter fiet ejus Ordinatio irrita habeatur Here the want of Popular Election is held to make void Ordination Sect. 7. Another sort of Testimonies out of Antiquity are the Decrees of Popes it was of old the Canon Law that the People should have a Hand in Elâ—ction of Ministers Bishops and others Anacletus who lived very near the Apostles time hath these words in one of his Epistles cum ejectionem summorum sacerdotum sibi Pominus reservaverit eorum electionem tamen benis sacerdotibus spiritualibus populis concessit Caelestinus primus who lived in the beginning of the Fifth Century hath these words nullus invitis detur Episcopus cleri plebis ordinis consensus requiratur Galasius about the 500 year decreed Electionem Episcopi esse totius Ecclesiae Also Stephanus Pecretat dist 63. saith Electionem non solum ad spiritualâ—s sed etiam ad Paicos pertinere And Lâ—o Magnus Anno 440. dist 63. is plain and full to this purpose So Gregorius Magnus about 590. frequently writeth to this purpose I instance only his Letter to Scholastâ—us Hâ—rtanum Magnitudâ—nem vestrâ—m ut cerâ—ocantes pâ—iores vel plâ—bem civitatis de electione alterius Sacerdotis cogites and when in case they found not one he desireth they may send three to Rome to consult about it adding quorum judicio plâ—bs tota consentiat Hadriarus who lived near the end of the Eighth Century in an Ep. to Charlemain commendeth Canâ—nes Olitanos and saith at electâ—ones he caused to proclaim the consuetudo Olitana to wit Plebs clerus Ecclesiae illius simul consistens elegerunt sibi Episcopum Sect. 8. Also particular Fathers have frequently given their Vote for this priviledge of the People Cyprian Ep. 3. often mentioneth his being chosen by the Suffrage of the whole Church of Carthage and in his Ep. de Martial Basilid he saith Plebs in sua potestate habâ—t eligendi dignos sacerdotes And he saith Idemvidemus de divina Authoritate descendere And he excuseth himself very carefully that in a case of necessity he had chosen Aurelius to be Reader in the Church without the Knowledge and Consent of the People Tertul. apol cap. 39. saith of the Seniores that preside in their Assemblies that is the Ministers Approbantur Suffragiis eorum quos regerâ—debent Greg. Nazianzen in a Funeral Sermon made on his Fathers Death discourseth much of this priviledge of the People Chrysostom lib. 4. de Sacerdotio is of the same
Rozary of the Virgin Mary it is alledged that St. Dominiâ—us had it revealed by the Virgin her self that this form of Service was most acceptable to her and it is added That she was fittest to chuse what way she would be Worshipped I hope they and such as Symbolize with them in ordering of the Worship of God will give us leave to say the same of her Blessed Son. 4. For the matter of Worship I think it will not be questioned whether that mâ—st be appointed by God or not otherwise the five Popish Sacraments that they have added to Christs wo could not be condemned and men might make anâ— kind of Action as Dancing Walking Leaping to be religious worship And even the Frame Composure or mode of Divine Worship should have Divine Warrant otherwise it is not Acceptable to God. The Lord hath appointed in his House as Acts of his Worship Reading Scripture Preaching Praying Praising Baptism and the Lords Supper and the Service that we offer up to him in our Assemblies should be an orderly performance of these But when Men devise a Frame of Service which is none of these distinctly and orderly performed but all of them confusedly jumbled together and some modes of their own added to them This Mode or Frame of divine worship the Lord hath not warranted there is no example of it in Scripture nor in the purest and first times of the Gospel and therefore we ought not to worship God in such a manner I hope it will not be asserted by our Brethren that it is in the power of the Church to cast the divine Offices as they speak into what Frame or Mould they will to make it look like a Theatrical Show if they like that way and think some carnal minds will be taken with it and if this be granted then it followeth that there may be a Frame of Worship unlawful as to the manner of it which it may be a Sin for people to join in I do not say that the order of religious Acts in the publick Assemblies is fixed so as we may not begin either with a Psalm or Prayer or Exhortation c. but there is an order to be observed and there may be a sinful swerving from it which we are obliged to shun Sect. 9. The last thing to be proved is That the Liturgy now under debate is unwarranted and that it is unlawful to join in worshipping God by it For this I bring five Reasons 1. The Ordinance of God for reading the word in the Assembles of his people is by this Service much perverted for the Scripture is read in a very corrupt Translation following the vulgar Latin Translation as the Papists do as may be shewed in many instances where the Sense of the Hebrew or Greek Text is either contradicted or distorted Additions are made to the Scripture as the 5th 6th and 7th verses of Psal. 14. are not in the Hebrew Many Chapters of the Bible are never read in the Church at all and instead of them humane Writings Yea which contain fabulous things as Ecclesiasticus 44. Judith 9. Tobit 5. much more also of Apocripha is read as the Word of God. Yea with justling out the Word of God. This we judge a depraving of God's Ordinance These Apocriphical writings tho they be not said to be divine Scripture yet they are so placed with it and in its stead and no hint given of their humane Original that the people cannot but look on them as Scripture yea wise men have ground to judge that they were so look'd on by the first contrivers of that Frame of Service I mean the Papists Some Scriptures are so read as the reading of them with express reference to such occasion as they are in the Book appropriate to is an abusing and mis-applying of them as on the Festivity of Michael the Archangel is read Rev. 12. 7. as if Michael that fought with the Dragon were not Christ but a created Angel. 2. It hath a great and scandalous appearance of superstition if superstition it self can be separated from its use in appropriating Scriptures to be read to days not only ordinary days but such as they without warrant have separated from other days and made Holy and restraining Ministers from reading such portions of Scripture to the people as suit the present case of them or of the Church also the appointing one piece to be said in the Desk another at the Altar one with the Ministers Face to the people another with his Face to the East and his Back toward the People the many changes of postures sitting standing kneeling bowing c. we cannot perswade our selves that such a Mode of worship is appointed by Christ Was ever practised in the purer times of the Church or is acceptable to God. Sect. 10. The Frame or Composure of it is unwarranted unprecedented in Scripture and the purer Antiquity and unsuitable to so holy an Action as is Gospel Worship as appeareth in the jumbling of Prayer and reading Scripture together so many short Collects two or three Lines and then reading then another â—crape of Prayer and then of Scripture also the Responds tossing the Service between Minister and People and the Clerk and Minister the mutual Salutations the Letany of Hethenish Original like O Baal hear us reiterated so often and other repeating of the same things so often as is nauseous to serious worshippers of God We dare not worship God in a way that is so unlike to any worship that we read of among his people and that is so Theatrical and Pompous 4. Several passages in it are not sound others have a great appearance of unsoundness and others are unwarrantable There is a Prayer that We with this our Brother the Man to be Buried and all our Brethren departed may have perfect Consummation Where the Dead are prayed for and it is supposed that every one that dyeth is Saved The words have that appearance they pray to be kept from all deadly Sin. It hath an hew at least of approving the distinction of Mortal and Venial Sins They pray to be delivered from several dangers and Afflictions which there is no more reason to mention in Prayer than there is of other things that are ordinary Sect. 11. 5. It is a Symbolizing with Idolaters in our manner of worshipping God which the Scripture condemneth Deut. 12. 30 31. I hope it will not be denyed by our Brethren that the Papists are Idolaters and that this Service is a Symbolizing with them is too evident which may appear 1. If we consider the Manner and Frame of this Service and compare it with the Mass It is true they differ in that this is in English that in Latin and that some parts of the Mass are left out but otherwise they are as like to one another as one thing can be to another and this was not denyed by our Reformers who professed that their design in retaining this Service was to
the Command of Superiors in that sense Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews p. 342. for this he sheweth That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists to prove That they equalled their Traditions with the Commands of God and hâ—nce inferreth that this was not look't â—n as an indifferent Ceremony but as a thing whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth to wit the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church not before so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies Wherefore Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse by this one saying as the Dr. alleadgeth I well know what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them But all this Sanctity they founded not only natural or antecedent goodness of the things observed but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them He telleth us that they said Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom deserveth not only Excommunication but Death too and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies except that it is not yet made death by the Law though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account hath brought them to their death I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of Eâ—gland that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings He admireth p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews and required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are A. He need not admire for none of us say so of that Washing when imposed and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition as our Ceremonies are That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are a Reason of the difference is already given to wit That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies for taking away Uncleanness Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution for honouring Him and edifying of Souls Sect. 13. He proceedeth Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth by considering the Popish Ceremonies and their opinion of washing away Sin and Justification by them And for this he citeth many Authors all which pains might have been spared For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abouâ— the Jews opinion of their Washings and needeth no other Answer All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies is consequent to and dependent on their being injoyned by the Church None of them say that they have such Efficacy in themselves and that they attribute taking away of sin to them ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works which the Church of England doth not maintain The Church of England maketh them good Works but denieth their Merit because she denieth that even to the Works that God hath commanded The Papists do but make them good Works also and that they think them meritorious is from this their opinion that all good Works are such and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves without Institution They ascribe spiritual Effects to them saith he so do you to your Ceremonies as stirring up of dull Minds engaging the Soul to God c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this without a Divine Institution that it has to drive away Devils as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity by the Doctor on this ground He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies with these of Rome but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites than that hath to make them Causes of Grace He telleth us pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise than as purged from Popish Superstition and for this citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer and Can. 30. Answer Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned if they may be their own Judges it is Amicum Testimonium I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them but to purge out all is impossible The things themselves as stated in the Worship of God without His Institution being such Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause by this Discourse our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies viz. That these things being unnecessary in themselves that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition ought not to be brought into God's Worship by them who abhor that way nor indeed can they without much scandal But of this and other Arguments I have treated elsewhere Sect. 14. His second way how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship he hath pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians And this he purgeth the Church of England from What is already said doth abundantly refute this for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts tho bad ones of Worship without this and the former too And indeed if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship none of the Popish Ceremonies were such for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God as he pleaseth more than the English Convocation will And I believe there was never Church in the world that held That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned unalterable and so as to bind all Christians But still the Doctor as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies and their Practice in reference to them If they be alterable why will ye rather ruine your Brethren hazard Souls rend the Church than alter them If they bind not our Consciences why do ye charge us with Sin for refusing them If they bind not all men why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon by many of your Church Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship and answereth them It is here to be observed that the Arguments that he mentioneth are but some of many that we use against the Ceremonies And these not they that are most directly against them Mr. A. Argueth thus An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of and Subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship The Dr. Answereth An outward visible Sign representing between men the duty or engagement of another is no