and the contention of others and therefore he desired to prevent any such disturbance in his City when he was dead And for that reason he acquainted the People that he designed Eradius or as some Copies have it Eraclius for his Successour So Paulus the Novation Bishop at Constantinople appointed his Successour Marcianus to prevent the contentions that might happen after his death and got his Presbyters to consent to it The Greek Canonists are of opinion that the Council of Nice took away all power of election of Bishops from the People and gave it to the Bishops of the Province And it is apparent from the Council of Antioch that Bishops were sometimes consecrated in the East without the consent of the People for it doth suppose a Bishop after consecration may not be received by his People which were a vain supposition if their election necessarily went before it And withall it puts the case of a Bishop that refused to go to his People after consecration which shews that the consecration was not then performed in his own Church Gregory subscribed at Antioch as Bishop of Alexandria before ever he went thither So Saint Basil mentions his consecration of Euphronius to be Bishop of Nicopolis without any consent of the People before it being then performed by the Metropolitan in his own See but he perswades the Senate and People to accept of him If the People did agree upon a Person to be Bishop their way then was to petition the Metropolitan and his Synod who had the full Power either to allow or to refuse him And it is evident from the twelfth Canon of the Council of Laodicea that although all the People chose a Bishop if he intruded himself into the possession of his See without the consent of a Provincial Synod he was to be turned out or rejected by them Which shews how much the business of elections was brought into the Bishops Power in the Eastern parts And by virtue of this Canon Bassianus and Stephanus were rejected in the Council of Chalcedon By the Law of Iustinian the common People were excluded from elections of Bishops and the Clergy and better sort of Citizens were to nominate three to the Metropolitan out of which he was to choose one By the Canon of Laodicea the common People were excluded from the Power of choosing any into the Clergy For they were wont to raise tumults upon such occasions such as Saint Augustin describes in the case of Pinianus but some of the Greek and Latin Canonists inlarge the sense of the Laodicean Canon to the election of Bishops too The second Council of Nice restrained the election onely to Bishop which was confirmed by following Councils in the Greek Church as Can. 28. Concil Constantinopol against Photius and the People are there excluded with an Anathema So far were popular Elections grown out of request in the Eastern Church 4. That when there were Christian Magistrates they did interpose in this matter as they judged expedient So Constantine did in the Church of Antioch when there was great dissension there upon the deposition of Eustathius he recommended to the Synod Euphronius of Cappadocia and Georgius of Arethusa or whom they should judge fit without taking any notice of the interest of the People and they accordingly consecrated Euphronius After the death of Alexander Bishop of Constantinople the People fell into Parties some were for Paulus and others for Macedonius the Emperour Constantius coming thither puts them both by and appoints Eusebius of Nicomedia to be Bishop there Eusebius being dead the Orthodox Party again choose Paulus Constantius sends Hermogenes to drive him out by force and was very angry with Macedonius for being made Bishop without his leave although afterwards he placed him in his throne When Athanasius was restored Constantius declared it was by the decree of the Synod and by his consent And he by his Authority restored likewise Paulus and Marcellus Asclepas and Lucius to their several Sees When Gregory Nazianzen resigned the Bishoprick of Constantinople Theodosius commended to the Bishops the care of finding out a Person who recommending many to him the Emperour himself pitched upon Nectarius and would have him made Bishop though many of the Bishops opposed it When Chrysostom was chosen at Constantinople the royal assent was given by Arcadius the election being made saith Sozomen by the People and Clergy but Palladius gives a more particular account of it viz. That upon the death of Nectarius many Competitours appeared some making their application to the Court and othes to the People in so much that the People began to be tumultuous 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Palladius upon which they importuned the Emperour to provide a fit man for them Eutropius being then chief Minister of State recommended Chrysostom to the Emperour and immediately an express was sent to the Comes Orientis that he should with all privacy for fear of a tumult at Antioch send him away to Constantinople whither being brought he was soon after consecrated Bishop So that here was no antecedent election of the People as Sozomen saith but whatever there was was subsequent to the Emperour's determination After the death of Sisinnius the Emperour declared That to prevent disturbance they would have none of the Clergy of Constantinople chosen Bishop there and so Nestorius was brought from Antioch Maximianus being dead he gave order that Proclus should be made Bishop before the others body was buried These instances are sufficient to shew that Christian Princes did from the first think fit when just occasion was given to make use of their Authority in this matter 5. Upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom there was greater reason for the Magistrates interposing than before For upon the endowment of Churches by the great liberality of the Northern Princes it was thought at first very reasonable that the Royal assent should be obtained though a Bishop was chosen by the Clergy and People which at first depended onely on tacit consent but after the solemn Assemblies of the People came to be much used these privileges of Princes came not onely to be confirmed by the Consent of the People but to be inlarged For the Princes obtained by degrees not onely the confirmation of the elected but the liberty of nomination with a shadow of election by the Clergy and others of the Court as appears by the Formulae of Marculphus This way was not always observed in France where frequently according to the Edict of Clotharius the Clergy and People chose the Metropolitan consecrated and the Prince gave his Royal assent but in doubtfull or difficult cases he made use of his Prerogative and nominated the Person and appointed the Consecration Afterwards there arose great contests between the Papal and Royal Power which continued for several
Worship of Images Invocation of Saints c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not depend on any such Ceremonies as ours are nor on the want of Discipline nor on the bare Dissatisfaction of Conscience but on such great and important Reasons as obtruding new Articles of Faith and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Communion of the Roman Church Amyraldus goes so far as to say That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in its communion For saith he a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions if he be otherwise faithful and skilful But if he mixes Poison with his Medicines and besides adds abundance of Prescriptions both needless and chargeable then the Patient hath great reason to look out for better help and to take care of his own safety and freedom By which he plainly declares that bare Ceremonies although many more than ours are no sufficient Ground for Separation Of late years a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation charging it with Schism because of the Separation from the Roman Church which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines M. Claude M. Pajon and M. Turretin But Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Doctrine is sound the constant use of Liturgy bare neglect of Discipline c. No they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these which they knew could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men if they could have alledged no more Substantial Reasons than these But they all agree in such common reasons which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justifiable viz. Great corruption in Doctrine Idolatrous Worship and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith No slight errors no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine not any corruption of Manners nor defect in Government or Discipline are sufficient grounds for Separation In one word saith he the Patient is not to be forsaken unless his Disease be deadly and infectious nor then neither but with great difficulty Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists goes upon these 3 grounds 1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent and without Anathematizing all those who have opposed them For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith 2. That the Publick Worship practised and allowed in that Church is Idolatrous he instanceth in Adoration of the Host the Worship of Saints and Images 3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpations of the Pope Let our Brethren now consider what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them but only that we could not have our Children Baptized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross nor receive the Communion without kneeling that we must observe Holy-days and use a Liturgy and that Men are not so good as they should be nor Discipline so exact as were to be wished How should we be hissed and laughed at all over the Christian World if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church but such things as these And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allegations they are harden'd in their own ways and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these by which unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation Sect. 24. 2. This Pretence of Separation would make Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are For the Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies and Vnscriptural Impositions as they are called than our Church hath They use the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Communion and the observation of Holy-days and times of Fasting and Set-Forms of Prayer c. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most reformed Churches by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad and at home I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love as Dr. O. speaks but to joyn together so as to make the same Bodies of Churches A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared that there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own opinions or Practices Which shews that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation for then they would not have admitted them as Members of the Lutheran Churches but have told them they ought to forsake their Communion and embrace that of the Reformed Churches Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines who have projected or perswaded an Vnion with the Lutheran Churches and others and see if any of them make the particulars mention'd any cause of Separation from them The Helvetian Churches declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger Myconius and Grynaeus and subscribed afterwards by all their Ministers and by those of Geneva and other places And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things yet say they because of our consent in Doctrine these things cause no Breach in our Churches And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremonies used in the Lutheran Churches except those of the Mass and Images in Churches At Sendomir in Poland A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian Auspurg Bohemian Confessions came to a full agreement so as to make up one Body notwithstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them which they say ought not to break the Communion of Churches as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine and the same foundation of Faith and Salvation and for this they appeal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions The Auspurg Confession declares That agreement in Doctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Churches Vnity then Separation cannot be lawful meerly on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditions And the Confession of Strasburg saith
species of Churches without God's Authority 3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches 1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church This I begin with because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others for in Saint Cyprian 's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world and that the Bishops there were the most godly faithfull peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times And of the following times he thus speaks Most of the African Councils saith he were the best in all the world Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils no Bishops being faithfuller than they Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised I shall lay down these two Observations Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them That there was to be but one Bishop in a City though the City were never so large or the Christians never so many This one Observation made good quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis For upon his principles where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence as he speaks there either they must alter the instituted species of Government or they must have more Bishops than one in a City For he saith the Church must be no bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach and have Conversation with But that this was not so understood in the African Churches appears by their strict observance of this Rule of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it will appear by this one Instance That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City and that was the Schism of the Donatists upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome had it not been fair to have divided them or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share But instead of this how doth Saint Cyprian even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian as Saint Augustin calls him aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City where there was one chosen before His words are so considerable to our purpose that I shall set them down Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already who ought to be alone he is not another Bishop but none at all Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can What! in such a City of Christians as Rome then was where were 46 Presbyters to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times and I am apt to think knew as well the Constitution of Churches then thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius and there tells him how far they had proceeded and what mischief this would be to the Church since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms After the election of Cornelius some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party and were received back again at a solemn Assembly where they confessed their fault and declared That they were not ignorant that as there was but one God and one Christ and one Holy Ghost so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius who would have it understood of one Pope but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church there ought to be but one Bishop in a City After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was that was chosen in his place And the necessity of this Vnity he insists on elsewhere and saith Our Saviour so appointed it unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy saying all the Apostles were equal and a little after Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that these holy men these Martyrs and Confessors men that were indeed dying daily and that for Christ too were all agreed that a Bishop there must be and that but one in a City though never so large and full of Christians Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus with this Proviso that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop and the other to have another People provided for him For which Saint Augustin commends him as an excellent man a true Son of Peace and Father of Christian People By which we see the best the wisest the most moderate Persons of that time never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Rule on both sides was but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese and if there had been any new made to increase
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
Ages and at last among us the royal Power overthrowing the other reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parlaments the Consent of the People is swallowed up therein since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation For not onely the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage derived from his Ancestours before the freedom of elections was granted Which shews not onely the great Antiquity of this Right but the consent of the whole Nation to it And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said That the King did dispose of them jure suo Regio by his Royal Prerogative as his Ancestours had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People than here in England and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here As to the inferiour Right of Patronage it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters as in a College together a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Country Presbyters c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice In the time of the first Council of Orange A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches c. 10. viz. If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno. A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk And the same were settled in the Western Church as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage and the endowments of Churches till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented and to give institution to the Benefice The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX plead That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage from the first planting of Christianity here For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built and at whose cost and charges they were erected and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves And this Ioh. Sarisburiensis saith was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us And the onely Questions now remaining are whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their own Pastours and supposing that it might be done whether it be reasonable so to doe And I conclude that 6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections 1. because it was no unalterable Right but might be passed away and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations and 2. because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings but may be remedied by Laws far easier than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves which cannot be done in a divided Nation without throwing all into remediless confusion 3. Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence Beza declaims against it as a thing without any ground in Scripture or any right in Antiquity and subject to infinite disorders In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King and so are the Bishops in Denmark In other Lutheran Churches the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates and in these the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State which hath Power to depose them And it would be very strange if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onely be discovered here where it is as unfit to be practised as in any part of the Christian world But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter for when the objection is put by him That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power and therefore they now consent he saith this seemeth a Iest for he saith 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power 2. They never consented that Parlaments should do what they list and dispose of their Souls or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls 3. They may as well say that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting 5. The obligation on the People was Personal and they have not God's consent for the transmutation So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves and all Rights of Advowson in the King or Noblemen and Gentlemen or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations and things utterly unlawfull among Christians since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny that the freedom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them do lie within the Magistrates Power and so binding Laws may be made about them unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives And if these may be justly settled by Laws then the
this tast let the Reader Iudge what Ingenuity I am to expect from this Man The Last who appeared against my Sermon is called the Author of the Christian Temper I was glad to find an Adversary pretending to that having found so little of it in the Answers of Mr. B. and Mr. A. His business is To commit the Rector of Sutton with the Dean of St. Paul's which was enough to make the Common People imagine this was some busie Justice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian Temper which the Author pretends to For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with in a Book written twenty years since with great tenderness towards the Dissenters before the Law 's were Establish'd As though as Mr Cotton once answered in a like case there were no weighty Argument to be found but what might be gather'd from the weakness or unwariness of my Expressions And Have you not very well requited the Author of that Book for the tenderness and pitty he had for you and the concernment he then expressed to have brought you iâ— upon easier terms than were since required And Hath he now deserved this at your hands to have them all thrown in his face and to be thus upbraided with his former kindness Is this your Ingenuity your Gratitude your Christian Temper Are you afraid of having too many Friends that you thus use those whom you once took to be such Methinks herein you appear very Self-denying but I cannot take you to be any of the Wisest Men upon Earth When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and farther consideration those Divines of the Assembly who then opposed Separation should change their Opinions Will you not allow one single Person who happen'd to Write about these matters when he was very young in twenty years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his life to see reason to alter his Iudgment But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the Point of Separation which is the present business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon Which will appear by these particulars in it 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such practises which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are New Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from that form they separate from 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undeterâ—in'd by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governors of the Church Allow but these Three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Why then do you make such a stir about other passages in that Book and take so little notice of these which are most pertinent and material Was it not possible for you to espy them when you ransacked every Corner of that Book to find out some thing which might seem to make to your purpose And yet the very first passage you quote is within two Leaves of these and Two passages more you soon after quote are within a Page of them and another in the very same Page and so many up and down so very near them that it is impossible you should not see and consider them Yes he hath at last found something very near them for he quotes the very Pages where they are And he saith he will do me no wrong for I do distinguish he confesses between Non-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practises in a Church and entering into distinct Societies for Worship This is doing me some right however although he doth not fully set down my meaning But he urges another passage in the same place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But Will not this equally hold against our Church if it Excommunicates those who cannot conform I Answer 1. Our Church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites For it allows them to Communicate in other parts of Worship as appeared by all the Non-conformists of former times who constantly joyned in Prayers and other Acts of Worship although they scrupled some particular Ceremonies 2. The case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others Separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of this Church For that is all which can be inferred from the Canons For in the former case it is not a lesser Excommunication denounced as it is only in our case against Publick and scandalous Offenders which is no more than is allowed in all Churches and is generally supposed to lay no obligation till it be duly executed though it be latae sententiae ipso facto but in the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema so as to pronounce us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to and continue in their Communion and this was it which that Author meant by being wholly cast out of Communion i. e. with the greatest and highest Church Censure 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Although therefore he might allow a scrupulous forbearance of some Acts of Communion as to some suspected Rites yet upon the Principles there asserted he could never allow Mens proceedings to a Positive Separation from the Communion of our Church And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Pauls But if any thing in the following Treatise be found different from the sense of that Book I do intreat them to allow me that which I heartily wish to them viz. that in Twenty years time we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts as to see reason to change our opinion of some things and I wish I had not Cause to add of some Persons too There is one thing more which this Author
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 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 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
their number as it was objected on both sides if it were proved they were not to be allowed for generally then every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties but in some places they had but one where the People were of one mind and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa both Parties striving to increase their Numbers Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places Carthage was a very large City and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time as I have already shewed And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major Restituta in which the Bishops always sate as Victor Vitensis saith there were several other considerable Churches in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage as the Basilica Fausti the Basilica Leontiana the Basilica Celerinae mentioned by Victor likewise who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum The Basilica Novarum The Basilica Petri. The Basilica Pauli And I do not question there were many others which I have not observed for Victor saith that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop maximam turbam Clericorum a very great multitude of Clergy all which he immediately banished And without the City there were two great Churches saith Victor one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom and the other where his body was buried at a place called Mappalia In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage taking in those who were trained up to it And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion as he calls it in one Church and at one Altar Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop and so setting up one Altar against another was setting up one Bishop against another as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate and so there were as many Altars as Churches So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist that in the City where he was Bishop the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence that not onely the Oblations were made there and the Communion received but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin which I have mentioned elsewhere but from Optatus who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers for saith he illà c ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove In the African Code there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside which evidently proves that there were not onely more places but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks as they often did the African Council decrees that after the decease of such a Bishop if the People had no mind to have another in his room they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop Which shews that they thought the Dioceses might be so large as to hold the People that were under two Bishops And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops In one it was determined that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them without limitation of distance after that that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before but if the Donatist Bishop were converted then the Diocese was to be divided between them If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese he that did take the pains in it was to have those places laid to his Diocese unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop that he was not to blame Let Mr. Baxter now judge whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes as he confidently affirms Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government and he tells this particular story of it that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there the man did accordingly and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman President to complain of their insolence and to crave his assistance which he saith he did lest he should be blamed for his negligence who was the Bishop of that Diocese And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena and he saith he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will to be better instructed as being under his care but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away himself upon which he writes a long Epistle to him In another Epistle he gives an account that there was a place called Fussala which with the Country about it belonged to the Diocese of Hippo where there was abundance of People but almost all Donatists but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them those places were all reduced but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo he took care to have a Bishop placed among them but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop he was fain to resume it as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala which he mentions afterwards However it appears that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint
repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy We intend no quarrel about names If it be Mr. B. ' s pleasure to call our Bishops Archbishops let him enjoy his own fancy It already appears from Saint Cyprian and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needfull that the Bishops of the several Churches were looked on as Successours to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches Now the Office of Mr. B. ' s Parochial Bishops was onely to attend to one particular Congregation but the Apostolical Office was above this while the Apostles held it in their own hands and did not make a new species of Churches nor overthrow the Constitution of Parochial Churches It seems then a strange thing to me that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church should be called the devising a new species of Churches But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordinary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Churches but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters and leaves them onely a bare name of Curates and destroyes the being of Parochial Churches But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in Peoples minds against it Sect. 12. Now to examin this let us consider two things 1. What Power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops of our Church have over them I. What Power is left to presbyters in our Church and that may be considered two ways 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church 2. With respect to their particular Congregations or Cures 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church and so 1. There are no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Divine Service are to be allowed or received in this Nation but by the Constitution of this Church the Presbyters of it have their Votes in passing them either in Person or by Proxy For all things of that Nature are to pass both Houses of Convocation and the lower House consists wholly of Presbyters who represent the whole Presbytery of the Nation either appearing by their own Right as many do or as being chosen by the rest from whom by Indentures they either do or ought to receive Power to transact things in their names And the Custom of this Church hath sometimes been for the Clergy of the Dioceses to give limited Proxies in particular Cases to their Procuratours Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether the Clergy of this Church have their whole Power swallowed up by the Bishops when yet the Bishops have no power to oblige them to any Rules or Canons but by their own consent and they do freely vote in all things of common concernment to the Church and therefore the Presbyters are not by the Constitution deprived of their share in one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. in making Rules for the whole Body And in this main part of Government the Bishops do nothing without the Counsel of their Presbyters and in this respect our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches which had their Councils of Presbyters together with their Bishops onely there they were taken singly in every City and here they are combined together in Provincial Synods model'd according to the Laws of the Nation And when the whole Body of Doctrine Discipline and Worship are thus agreed upon by a general consent there seems to be far less need of the particular Councils of Presbyters to every Bishop since both Bishops and Presbyters are now under fixed Rules and are accountable for the breach of them 2. In giving Orders by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to assist the Bishops and to examin the Persons to be Ordained or the Bishop in their presence and afterwards to joyn in the laying on of hands upon the Persons ordained And is all this nothing but to be the Bishop's Curates and to officiate in some of his Chapels 2. As to their particular charges one would think those who make this objection had never read over the Office of Ordination for therein 1. For the Epistle is read the charge given by Saint Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act. 20. or the third Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great impertinency had both these been if the Presbyters Power had been quite swallowed up by the Bishops But it hence appears that our Church looked on the Elders at Ephesus and the Bishop in Timothy to be Presbyters as yet under the care and Government of the Apostles or such as they deputed for that Office such as Timothy and Titus were Which I suppose is the true meaning of Saint Ierome and many other doubtfull passages of Antiquity which relate to the community of the names of Bishop and Presbyter while the Apostles governed the Church themselves And at this time Timothy being appointed to this part of the Apostolical Office of Government the Bishops mentioned in the Epistle to him may well enough be the same with the Presbyters in the Epistle to Titus who was appointed to ordain Elders in every City Titus 1. 5. 2. In the Bishop's Exhortation to them that are to be ordained he saith Now we exhort you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ to have in remembrance into how high a dignity and to how chargeable an Office ye be called that is to say the Messengers and Watchmen the Pastours and Stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed and provide for the Lord's Family c. have always therefore printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge for they be the Sheep of Christ which he bought with his death and for whom he shed his bloud The Church and Congregation whom you must serve is his Spouse and Body And if it shall chance the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hinderance by reason of your negligence you know the greatness of the fault and of the horrible punishment which will ensue c. Is this the language of a Church which deprives Presbyters of the due care of their flocks and makes Parochial Congregations to be no Churches 3. The person to be ordained doth solemnly promise to give faithfull diligence to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God so that he may teach the People committed to his Cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here we see a Cure and charge
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
preach notwithstanding the Laws can excuse them from Separation for this lies at the bottom of all 1. As to the Original inherent Right and Power of the People Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way he quotes a saying of F. Paul out of a Book of his lately translated into English that in the beginning the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person For was there not a Church to be formed in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end Where was the Church power then lodged Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed Were not then the several Pastours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them And if they had such Power and Authority over the People how came their Power to be derived from them as it must be if the Church Government then were Democratical Besides Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers and convey the Power of the Keys to them which never were in their hands And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons no more is required as to the People than barely their Testimony therefore it is said they must be blameless and men of good report But where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys must meet together and choose their Pastour and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves to them If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury for they have said no more of their Power in the Church than they have done of the Pope's It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle but were not the Women so too And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too Suppose not doth this prove that the Churches Power was then Democratical then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power which I do not think any man would say much less F. Paul As to the election of Deacons it was no properly Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock and was there not then all the reason in the world the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith he gave an account of it to all the Church And what then Must he therefore derive his power from it Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds But here is not all the Church mentioned onely those of the Circumcision at Ierusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert And what is this to the power of the Church But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders Apostles Priests and faithfull Brethren I grant it but is it not expresly said that the Question was sent up from the Churches to the Apostles and Presbyters Is it not said that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it and that the multitude was silent Is it not said that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters without any mention of the People And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power but in the other place it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made In success of time it is added when the Church increased in number the faithfull retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families and having left those of the Congregation the Government was retained onely in the Ministers and so became Aristocratical saving the election which was Popular Which account is neither agreeable to Reason nor to Antiquity For was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times How came it to be changed from that to a Democratical Form Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches and charged the People to obey them And was this an argument the Power was then in the People It was not then the People's withdrawing of which there can be no evidence if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power in Antiquity but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity but yet not such as to fix any inherent or unalterable Right in the People As I shall make appear by these following observations 1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church 3. That to prevent these many Bishops were appointed without their choice and Canons made for the better regulating of them 4. That when there were Christian Magistrates they did interpose as they thought fit notwithstanding the popular claim in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State 5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons 6. That things being thus settled by established Laws there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws If I can make good these Observations I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded concerning the Right and Power of the People which my Adversaries build so much upon 1. That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How much rather of the Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith
had the judgment of a whole Council of African Bishops for their deserting him 4. For a notorious matter of fact viz. Idolatry and Blasphemy by his own confession 5. All the proof which Saint Cyprian brings for this doth amount to no more than that the People were most concerned to give Testimony as to the good or bad lives of their Bishops This further appears by the words in Lampridius concerning Alexander Severus who proposed the names of his civil Officers to the People to hear what they had to object against them and said it was a hard case when the Christians and Iews did so about their Priests the same should not be done about Governours of Provinces who had mens lives and fortunes in their hands But no man could ever from hence imagin that the People had the Power to make or unmake the Governours of Roman Provinces Origen saith The Peoples presence was necessary at the Consecration of a Bishop that they might all know the worth of him who was made their Bishop it must be astante Populo the People standing by and this is that Saint Paul meant when he said A Bishop ought to have a good Testimony from those that are without 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church Eusebius represents the disorders of Antioch to have been so great in the City upon the choice of a new Bishop by the Divisions of the People that they were like to have shaken the Emperour's Kindness to the Christians For such a flame was kindled by it that he saith it was near destroying both the Church and the City and they had certainly drawn Swords if the Providence of God and fear of the Emperour had not restrained them Who was forced to send Officers and Messages to keep them quiet and after much trouble to the Emperour and many meetings of Bishops at last Eustathius was chosen Greg. Nazianzen sets forth the mighty unruliness of the People of Caesarea in the choice of their Bishop saying it came to a dangerous sedition and not easy to be suppressed and he saith the City was very prone to it on such occasions And although there was one Person of incomparable worth above the rest yet through the Parties and Factions that were made it was a hard matter to carry it for him He complains so much of the inconveniencies of popular Elections that he wishes them alter'd and the Elections brought to the Clergy and he thinks no Common-wealth so disorderly as this method of Election was Evagrius saith the sedition at Alexandria was intolerable upon the division of the People between Dioscorus and Proterius the People rising against the Magistrates and Souldiers who endeavoured to keep them in order and at last they murthered Proterius Such dangerous Seditions are described at Constantinople upon the Election of Paulus and Macedonius by Sozomen and in the same place after the death of Eudoxius and after the death of Atticus by Socrates and after the deprivation of Nestorius And again at Antioch upon the removal of Eudoxius and about the Election of Flavianus at Ephesus by Saint Chrysostom at Verselles by Saint Ambrose at Milan by Socrates and many other places I shall onely adde a remarkable one at Rome on the choice of Damasus which came to bloodshed for several days and is particularly related by Ammianus Marcellinus and the Preface to Faustinus his Libellus Precum Mr. Baxter grants there are inconveniencies in the Peoples consenting Power and so there are in all humane affairs But are these tolerable inconveniencies Is this Power still to be pleaded for in opposition to Laws as though Religion lay at stake and onely Magistrates were bad men and the People always good and wise and vertuous A man must have great spite against Men in Power and unreasonable fondness of the Common People that can represent great Men as wicked debauched and enemies to Piety and at the same time dissemble and take no notice of the Vices of the Common People besides their Ignorance and incapacity of judging in such matters and their great proneness to fall into sidings and parties and unreasonable contentions on such occasions But Saint Chrysostom complains much of the unfitness of the People to judge in such cases Saint Hierom saith they are apt to choose men like themselves and saith elsewhere they are much to be feared whom the People choose Origen saith the People are often moved either for favour or reward 3. That to prevent these inconveniencies many Bishops were appointed without the choice of the People and Canons were made for the regulation of Elections In the Church of Alexandria the Election of the Bishop belonged to the 12 Presbyters as Saint Ierom and others shew For by the Constitution of that Church before the alteration made by Alexander the Bishop of Alexandria was not onely to be chosen out of the 12 Presbyters but by them So Severus in the life of the Alexandrian Patriarchs saith that after the death of their Patriarch the Presbyters met together and prayed and proceeded to election and the first Presbyter declared it belonged to them to choose their Bishop and to the other Bishops to consecrate him To which the Bishops assented onely saying if he were worthy they would consecrate whom they chose but not otherwise Elmacinus makes this a Constitution of Saint Mark in the first foundation of that Church and saith it continued to the time of the Nicene Council and then as Hilarius the Deacon saith the custom was alter'd by a Council among themselves which determin'd that they might choose the most deserving person whether of that Body or not And there could be no room for popular elections whereever that Custom obtained which the Counterfeit Ambrose speaks of ut recedente uno sequens ei succederet speaking of the Bishop dying and the next in course succeeding But if this be onely a particular conceit of that Authour yet we find the Bishops consecrating others in several Churches without any mention of choice made by the People So when Narcissus retired from Ierusalem Eusebius saith the neighbour Bishops assembled and consecrated one Dius in his room and after him followed Germanio and then Gordius in whose time Narcissus returned but being grown very old Alexander was brought in to assist him by Revelation and a Voice from Heaven to some of the Brethren Severus Bishop of Milevis in his life-time appointed his Successour and acquainted the Clergy with it but not the People great disturbance was feared hereupon the Clergy sent to Saint Augustin to come among them and to settle their new Bishop who went and the People received the Bishop so appointed very quietly S. Augustin himself declares the sad effects he had often seen of the Churches Election of Bishops through the ambition of some
attribute Iustification to the Sacraments and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies However since they attribute so spiritual effects to them it is an argument they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship as much as they do on Prayer with which they compare them in point of efficacy But with what face can this be objected against our Church which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us and declares that they are no otherwise received in our Church than as they are purged from Popish Superstition and Errour And therefore all opinion of merit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship which being removed they remain onely naked Ceremonies i. e. as Cassander well expresses it Words made visible or teaching Actions whose design and intention being towards us and not towards God they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship although they be used in the performance of them As if the Christians in the East did wear the bâ—dge of a Cross upon their Arms at some solemn days as on good Friday at their devotions to distinguish them from Turks and Iews would any one say that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Worship So that the distinction between these two is not so hard to find if men apply their minds to the consideration of it 2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution If men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual effects and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as expresly as it is possible that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable and that changes and alterations may be made as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremoâ—â— any parts of Divine Worship than these things dâ— And thus I have at once shewed what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church For Mr. A. saith An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship I answer 1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another is no part of Divine Worship at all much less a substantial part of it There are some visible signs from God to men representing the effects of his Grace to us and those we call Sacraments there are other signs from men to God to testifie their subjection and dependence and these are acts of Worship and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action and these are significant Ceremonies such as the Cross in Baptism is For after the Child is baptized and received into the Church the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. To whom is this token made Is it to God no certainly If it were a permanent sign of the Cross would it be for a Testimony to God or to Men When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified was this a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace as the Sacraments are It represents the Duty and not the Grace the Duty is ours and may be represented by us but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that because he alone is the Giver of it 2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God but of obligation on the person It is true that in the 30 Canon it is said that this Church retains the sign of the Cross following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof we must consider That Baptism is declared to be compleat before so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it nor being omitted takes nothing from it as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church This therefore is no part of the Baptismal Dedication And the Minister acts in a double capacity when he doth baptize and when he signs with the sign of the Cross when he baptizeth he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. Which being done and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism he then speaks in the name of the Church varying the number We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one do make use of this sign of the Cross as the Rite of Admission into the Church and of his obligation to behave himself as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense as no doubt it was so intended all the difficulties about a Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign concerning which some have made so great a stir will soon appear to be of no force For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Let us suppose an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe
more agreeable to the sense of their Church and that the argument is of no force against it because it is so hard to be understood for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this Ioh. Baptista Gonet a late learned Thomist not onely contends earnestly for this opinion but saith The greater part of their Divines assert it and those of greatest reputation as Ruardus Tapper Vega Sayrus Ysambertus Suarez Valentia Bellarmin Reginaldus Moeratius Ripalda and many more And Conquetius he saith reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments as it is asserted by their Divines to the significancy of our Ceremonies 2. As to the Protestant Doctrines he represents that in very ambiguous terms for he saith That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally If it be their Doctrine that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all which he seems to yield and if he did not might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad as well as at home This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onely invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons There being not the least ground for it that I can discern and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds and have filled them with strange fears and scruples yea some who have conquer'd their prejudices as to other things have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way And yet after all Mr. B. declares That if it be a sin it is the Ministers and not the Person 's who offers the Child to be baptized and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it yet it can be no pretence for Separation Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church for allowing worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Iesus which he saith are made the Motive of Worship if not something else The lawfulness of these things so far as they are required by our Church I had formerly defended against the Papists and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used I had said that bowing at the name of Iesus was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell the Worship being not given to the Name but to Christ at the sound of his Name Why may not saith he an Image give warning to the Eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear I will tell him since he needs it because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant But such men do too much discover whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs but the Question is whether they do not sin in applying it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated Motive to Worship When I read this I began to pity the man being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans he had some reason to have answered him but I have none But he brings it home to us for saith he If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship then how shall we excuse our own adorations What doth the man mean I am yet afraid all things are not right somewhere We acknowledge no adorations but what are due to the Divine Majesty and do these need to be excused And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images against our worshipping of God Let him first prove that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty before we shall go about to excuse our adorations But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship whoever said they did not I am sure not our Church But let this pass what follows then saith he why do we not introduce Images into our Churches Ask Mr. B. that Question and not us of the Church of England If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull this were a pertinent Question but since we deny it what makes all this against us which if our Church-men shall venture upon I pray stay till they do before you charge us with it Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate But he saith they may doe it with equal reason Here is something now fit to be proved We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body or to Iesus at the mention of his name Hold now to this and prove it Instead of that he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell and bowing at the name of Iesus viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship when mens minds should be intent on devotion and not sit listening and watching as Whittington ' s Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you viz. what he hath laboured for all this while for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God which no body contends for that I know of but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons or the Creed and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly and although it be said or otherwise in the Church pronounced yet by the manner
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
then can justifie this Separation but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship Hold saith he the consequence is not good for there are certain middle things between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances about which it will be lawful to divide though otherwise we agree in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship So that here a Separation is justified 1. on the account of such things which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship 2. Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship and consequently although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship For that he charged us with in the Antecedent and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence he must grant that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies although they be made no parts of worship at all For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship they can be none at all and yet he saith it is lawful to divide about them And which is more pleasant when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things he doth it by undertaking to shew that they are made substantial parts of Worship For thus he argues The Church of England hath exalted these things i. e. Ceremonies to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them and therefore they conclude them sinful If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful then they must be either substantial or circumstantial parts of Worship and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship which I have answered already But after all our arguings about these matters Mr. A. saith the Controversie stands still where it did these hundred years and more I utterly deny that for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years than they did in a hundred years before as appears by the foregoing discourse However they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters and so long they cannot joyn with us and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation which I shall consider both wayes 1. As it respects the Churches censures 2. As it respects the judgement of Conscience 1. As it respects the Churches censures This Mr. B. often insists upon The Canons saith he excommucate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it separation to be so excommunicated And who is the Schismatick here Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you And if men be wrongfully excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion To this I answer That the Excommunication denounced is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it The words of the Canon are not as Mr. B. quotes them If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy Ceremonies c. to be unlawful are excommunicate ipso facto but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England established by Law to be impious Anti-Christian or Superstitious let him be Excommunicate ipso facto Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon for to say if any man do but affirm c. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto but when the Canon saith if any shall affirm c it implies these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately Both which the word Affirm will bear For as S. Augustin very well saith every mans errour is born with until he either finds an accuser or he obstinately defends his opinion Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujusâ—ibet donec aut accusatorem inveniat aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition according to the Rule If he will not hear the Church let him be as an Heathen or a Publican Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular persons until the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it Besides such excommunications which are de jure latae sententiae are rather to be looked on as Comminations than as formal excommunications For Gerson putting the question what the effect of such excommunications is he answers that it is no more than this that there needs no new judicial process but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence Which he saith he learnt from his Master who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray And if it requires a new sentence then it doth not actually excommunicate But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath discoursed coursed at large to whom I refer the Reader As to the practice of Canon Law in England Lyndwood saith that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto And it is a Rule in our Church that Persons excommunicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months that others may have notice of them and until the sentence be thus declared I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication though it be said to be ipso facto For although the sentence seem peremptory yet ipso facto doth suppose a fact and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church of which there must be evident proof brought before the sentence can take hold of the Person And to make the sentence valid as to the person there must be due execution of it and the question in this case then is whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication be bound to execute this sentence upon himself which he must do if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point Although saith he we are excommunicated ipso facto yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us And so he hath fully answered his own objection But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating
with a Church who are first excommunicated by that Church Yes in these cases they may 1. when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence For otherwise no Church could condemn any excommunicated Persons for Schism if it declared before hand that all those who held such Doctrines or condemned such Practices should be excommunicated To make this plain by Instances Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sentence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism R. Williams and his Company oppose it they upon this are actually excommunicated may the Churches of New England call these men Schismaticks or not If they are Schismaticks notwithstanding the sentence of excommunication then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism By the Constitution of the Churches of France every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatick Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatick because this amounts to an excommunication ipso facto So in Scotland 1641. Subscription to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication if any had been excommunicated on this account would this excuse them from the charge of Schism in the judgement of the Covenanters By the Constitutions of Geneva any one that opposes or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year as Calvin himself relates it Suppose this were meerly excommunication for so long would not Calvin have thought them Schismaticks for all that For he fully declares his mind in this case on occasion of a certain Non-conformist in an Epistle to Farell where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate if that did not prevail they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church which saith he is agreeable to ancient Councils and the mind of God in Scripture therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it Here we see excommunication justified against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church and much more certainly if they publickly affirm them to be Impious Antichristian or Superstitious as 8. Canon expresseth and no Church in the world but will think excommunication reasonable upon the like grounds and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism they may be guilty of it still although excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts 2. If they proceed to form new Churches as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances and let him judge whether all persons so excommunicated would not have been condemned much more for Schismaticks if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs S. Augustin puts the case of good men unjustly excommunicated and he saith they are to bear it with patience for the peace of the Church and such will still maintain the true faith sine ullâ Conventiculorum segregatione without running into separate Meetings although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated Such as these saith he the Father which seeth in secret will reward and crown in secret This kind seems very rare but there want not instances yea there are more than can be believed 2. As to the judgement of Conscience The Author of the Letter out of the Countrey lays the Foundation of the separation upon the force of Scruples mighty Scruples Scruples of a long standing and of a large extent Scruples that there is no hopes to remove without some very overpowering impression on mens minds I am so much of another mind that I think a little impartiality and due consideration would do the business but as long as men read and hear and judge only of one side and think it a temptation to examine things as they ought to do and cry out they are satisfied already there is not much hopes of doing good upon such but I think they can have no great comfort in such Scruples Men that really scruple things out of tenderness of Conscience are sincerely willing to be better informed and glad of any light that brings them satisfaction and do not fly out into rage and violent passion against those who offer to remove their Scruples Hath this been the temper of our scrupulous Brethren of late Let their Scruples be touched never so tenderly they cannot bear it and take it extremely ill of those who would better inform them Mr. B. freely tells me that he that thinks his own or others reasonings will ever change all the truely honest Christians in the Land as to the unlawfulness of the things imposed knoweth so little of matters or of men or of Conscience as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest What is the reason of such a severe saying Where lies the strength and evidence of these Scruples Why may not honest men be cured of their errors and mistakes as I am perswaded these are such which they call Scruples Is there no hopes to bring the People to a better temper and more judgement For I know nothing more is necessary for the cure of them Here is no depth of learning no subtilty of reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about these matters The dispute lies in a narrow compass and men may see light if they will But what if they will not Then we are to consider how far a wilfull mistake or error of Conscience will justifie men I say it doth not cannot justifie them in doing evil and that I am sure breaking the Peace of the Church for the sake of such Scruples is And this I had said in my Sermon which I take to be very material for our scrupulous persons to consider For suppose they should be mistaken doth this error of Conscience justifie their separation or not If not they may be in an ill condition for all their Scruples or their confidence And so Mr. Baxter hath long since declared that if we do through weakness or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful that will not excuse us in our disobedience Our error is our sin and one sin will not excuse another sin But Mr. A. saith 1 That I do ill to put together wilfull Error and mistake of Conscience when I say they do not excuse from sin since there is so great a difference between a wilfull Error and a mistake of simple ignorance What strange cavilling is this When any one may see that I join wilfull both to Error and Mistake And is not a mistake or error of Conscience all one If I had said a mistake of simple ignorance doth not excuse from sin I had contradicted the whole design of that discourse which is to shew that there must be wilfulness in the error or mistake which doth not excuse For I say expresly if
separated from a Church on the account of their Preachers having human learning and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them their answer was That is your judgement and this is ours i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples and therefore must persist in separation or return to Paganism Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth withdraws from their Communion and sets up another Assembly in the Town and upon his obstinate continuance therein was solemnly excommunicated by them And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to time will discover I would only know whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod should proceed to Separation whether this Separation be justifiable or not This is certain that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles and say their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees and if they proceed those Churches may be broken in pieces by these principles of Separation As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countreys most of them were by new Scruples which the People could not conquer for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members and carried away many of them And so they had done in New England and dissolved those Churches before this time if this principle had been allowed there viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples they may proceed to Separation No they tell them they must preserve the Peace of their Churches and if they cannot be quiet among them the world is wide enough for them So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians This I only mention to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their Scruples And upon the same ground not only Anabaptists and Quakers but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations For I suppose this Gentleman will not deny but they may have Scruples too many Scruples and of long standing and among great numbers and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them And by that time all these have set up among us shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation have taken any care to put any stop to it or to let us know where we may fix and see an end of it what scruples are to be allowed and what not and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling and say they cannot conquer their Scruples Are there no Scruples among us but only against the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism and kneeling at the Lords Supper Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper saying they are not to be literally understood Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations and say we can have no true Churches because we renounce Communion with the Pope What is to be done with all these and many more scruplers who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers This I mention because this Gentleman seems to look on it as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. For having spoken of that he addes Nor is it in it self of less weight perhaps 't is of much greater that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children but others must appear and undertake for them which he repeats soon after And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters as any that have come after him in the Admonitions declared that this was a thing arbitrary and left to the discretion of the Church And in his first Answer he saith For the thing it self considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches they do not mislike of it So that on the same ground it seems all oâ—â—er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at as well as ours and yet not only this Gentleman but Mr. B. several times mentions this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us nay he calls this his greatest objection and yet he confesseth that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents our Baptism is valid and lawful Now where is it that our Church excludes such a representation Indeed by Canon 29 the Parents are not to be compelled to be present nor suffered to answer as Susceptors for their Children but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office In the Bohemian Churches there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them and so they may be said to represent the Parents If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉 against the consent of the Parents then none couâ—â— in reason suppose that there was any implicit compact between them But since they are of the Parents choosing what they do in that office is supposed to be with their full consent If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old at some certain seasons only and indispensable occasions required the Parents absence might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence and the intentention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance If men be negligent in doing their duty must the Church bear the blame and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion But there is something beyond this which lies at the bottom of this scruple viz. that the Child 's Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents and therefore if the Parents be excluded and only Sponsors admitted the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism For Mr. B.'s first Question is which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism any more than all