Liberty of captivating their Vnderstanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free Passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by God's Blessing that universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Vnity This Citation being to long I shall add but one more out of him and that a shorter p. 209. This is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Vnity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion Last of all I close with your Rational Account p. 291. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in Justice make the necessary Conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare Men Christians ought to capacitate them for Communion with Christians Even an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the indispensible Rule of Faith and Manners Which be pleased to note is something different from your late establish'd Rule Now would you fix here that those things which declare Men Christians shall suffice to capacitate them for Communion with you how many Mens Scruples would be removed and what better way can you think of to put a stop to Separation 7. Are you Impartial in charging all Nonconformist's Meetings with Separation tho very many of them ordinarily join with the Parochial Congregations and do not deny them â—o be true Churches as the old Separatists did p. 56. It is true say you in that Opinion they differ but in Separation they agree As in your Sermon p. 33. For do they not do the very same things and in the same manner that the others do how comes it then to be Separation in some and not in others Which I answered Rector of Sutton p. 49. thus What they do is not done upon the Separatists Principles and therefore not done in the same manner Yet you neither retract that Saying of yours nor refute my Answer And have not others as much reason to object against you that when you receive the Sacrament kâ—eeling you do the same thing that the Papists and Lutherans do I do not think it manifestly appears from the Pope's manner of receiving either sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as you say p. 15. that the Papists are allowed to follow him herein How then comes that to be an Act of Worship in them when with you it is no Act of Worship but a â—eer indifferent Ceremony 8. Are you not very Partial in loading those that do not absolutely separate from you but only secundum quid as you do p. 54 55 56. Making their Practice that own you to be true Churches to be the more unjustifiable more inexcusable more unreasonable Separation Is it not a greater Schism to separate from you as no true Church than to do it only because you are faulty in imposing such Conditions as they cannot lawfully submit to Are they the greatest Separatists who hold Communion with you so far as they can I should think they are the greatest Separatists whose Separation is the most unjustifiable inexcusable and unreasonable As I had thought there was not so much reason to deny the Being of the Church of England while she retaineth the true Faith and hath the true Worship of God for substance as there may be to doubt of the lawfulness of Ceremonies and Modes of Worship invented and imposed without any clear Scripture-Warrant And suppose one dares not receive the Communion with you because he holdeth kneeling in that Act a participating with Idolaters and another is kept off because he suspects there may be some Superstition in it will you say the latter is the more unreasonable And do you not own those Lutheran Churches that have Exorcism with Baptism yet to be true Churches And if you was placed there must you therefore own and use Exorcism tho against your Judgment or be guilty of a more inexcusable unreasonable Separation from them than the Papists who deny them to be true Churches 9. Are you Impartial in allowing a different way of Worship to the Members of Forreign Churches here in England as p. 147 148. while you are against allowing the like Liberty to Natives which you deny not to Strangers Bishop Davenant Ad pacem Eccl. Adhort p. 116. Rat. 3. argues That none ought to deal more hardly with their Christian Brethren of other Churches than with their own Rom. 12. 5. Nam fraâ—â—rnitâ—s Christiana quae Intercedit inter membra Christi non variatur pro locorum aut nationum varietate You would have your own more hardly dealt with than those of forreign Churches Now what Equity is here Either you have Communion with those of Forreign Churches not withstanding their different way of Worship or you have not If you have no Communion with them then are you not Schismaticks from those Churches If you have Communion with them why may you not as lawfully have Communion with Nonconformists in their way of Worship Can you assign any just and sufficient Cause ex Natura rei why such a way of Worship should not be allowed 10. Do you deal Impartially while you complain p. 112. that no bounds are set to the Peoples Fancies of purer Administrations concerning which I am quite mistaken if I did not wish the Rector of Sutton had cautioned what he said and you on the other hand set no Bounds but by your excepting against what Mr. B. hath written of it would have People own and commit the care of their Souls to such Ministers as are in place be they never so profane insufficient or unsound Tho Mr. Cheyney Full Answer c. Introduct p. 7. grants That where God doth make a difference Men may Now God doth make a difference says he between the Ministry of the best and the worst between the Ministry of a John Baptist and a Pharisee a living Man and an Image P. 177. Say you And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches c. Where you suppose every Parochial Church in England to be a true Church and every Parochial Minister by consequence to be a true Minister unless you would argue fallaciously there Tho I had thought it possible to have found out some few at least whom you would have been ashamed to own I cannot but wonder at that you urge again and again p. 111. Were they not baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it p. 148. Our Business is with those who being baptized in this Church c. May not all those that were baptized in Presbyterian or Independent Congregations as well plead their Baptism for their continuing in that way of Worship which was in the
the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned Tacâ—o caetera Now I had thought you might have granted more places for Worship not only desireable and useful but very necessary for such as cannot câ—me to yours as far as the Apostle makes hearing of the Word necessary Rom. 10. 1â— 17. more necessary than unnecessary Modes of Worship or such matters as you count but indifferent things But by what is here last cited it is too plain and manifest that you condemn all Religious Assemblies in England that follow not your Church-Rule and own not the Authority of the Bishops And thus it seems where you are zealous in words for Communion yet Subjection to the Bishops Authority is the thing you drive at And upon this Account though your Discourse was calculâ—ted chiefly for the City of London yet it may indâ—fferently serve for all other Places and Meetings in England where youâ— Church-Rules and Orders are not observed and obeyed As to our grief we in the Country have found many of the conformable Clergy with others improving your Authority and Arguments as far as they are able even against such Assemblies as meet off from the times of the Paroâ—hiâ—l Congregations meeting that they might not be censured to meet in opposition These are sâ—parate Meetings with you as well as others because the Orders of the Church are neglected in them But 3. What will you say of those Assemblies where Christ taught and the Disciples likewise whom he sent forth Did they dâ— this as undâ—r the Inspection and Government of the Rulers that then were Were they tyed up to the Church-Rules of the Jews in what they did were they not distinct and peculiar Officers Certainly you mince the matter when you say pag. 163. Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples occasionally and at câ—rtain Seasons As if he taught but rarely or seldom And as if he was câ—ntent with his Disciples only to be his Hearers As you would have the silenced Ministers think it enough if they have three or four besides the Family whereas we read of Christ's teaching the Multitude and of the Multitude pressing upon him to hear And when he sent forth the Twâ—lve Mâ—t. 1â— preaching was a good part of their Work And the Miracles they wâ—ought were to seal and confirm their Doctrine So the Seventy Luk. 10. were to tâ—â—ch So much is implied ver 16. He that heareth you hearetâ— me and he that despiseth you despiseth me c. Now what will you make of them and their Hearers Here were distinct and peculiar Teachers not under the Government of the Iewish Church-Rulers Then were they new unlawful Churches I know you will not say iâ— But if you say hâ—re though they differed in somethings from the Form of the Iewish Church yet they did not separate Well grant that yet consider whether this Example may not justiâ—y those who ordinarily 〈◊〉 with their â—arochial Congregations in hearing Non-conformists at 〈◊〉 times And mâ—y it not justify those Non-conformist Ministers that 〈…〉 from the Parochial Congregations And how many more 〈…〉 but for the five Miles Act which 〈…〉 distinguish betwixt such and others that I can find but all are alike to you Yea so far are you from favouring these that sometimes you would have the Sin of those that own you for true Churches and have Communion with you as fâ—r as they can to be aggravated and more inexeusable in having other dâ—stinct which you account sâ—paratâ— Meetings Ball against Can part 1. p. 82. Neither did our Saviour nor his Disciples before his Death 〈◊〉 upon them to erect a new visible Church altogether distinct from the erring Synagogue but lived in thâ—t Church and frequented the Ordinancâ—s neither as absolute Members of the Synagogue nor yâ—t as the visible Churâ—h distinct from it But as visiâ—le Members of that primitive Church from which that Synagogue had degenerated I find you so hard and uâ—yielding in this Controversâ— I should be glad if you would grant a little here which I wonder how you can so stifly deny in hopes of more in time 4. As you know our Reformers pleaded that in their departure from Rome they forsook not the Church but approached nearer to the Catholick anâ— Primitive â—hurch as P. Martyr Loc. Com. p. 915. So those Christian Assemblies you censure as new unlawful Churches because not under youâ— Rule suppose you have censured them rashly here if in their Worship they are nearer the Scripture-Rule And truly Sir you speak so home and fully to the purpose Rational Accâ—unt p. 356 357. as is quite beyond the power and râ—aâ—h of my poor Imagination to conceive how you can ever answer your self There you say Supposing any Church tho pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds ☞ Whatever Church takes upon her to limit and inclose the bounds of the Catholick becomes thereby divided from the Communion of the Catholick Church and all such who disown such an unjust inclosure do not so much divide from the Communion of that Church so inâ—losing ☞ as return to the Communion of the Primitive and Universal Church How will Dissenters thank you for this Methinks I have some hope that we shall in time be agreed thâ—t we shall have you who do so clearly understand and apprehend what Schism there is in any Churches limiting and inclosing the bounds of the Catholick Church shall we not have you again pleading for Catholick Terms And you say further ibid. p. 357. The disowning of those things wherein your Church is become Schismatical cannot certainly be any culpable Separation For whatever is so must be from a Church so far as it is Catholick but in our case it is from a Church so far only as it is not Catholick c. While such Passages so greatly befriending Dissenters that would gladly close with you upon Cathâ—â—ick Termâ— drop from you at unawares whâ—n you sâ—arce think of them whâ—t an excellent 〈◊〉 â—â—ould they have of you it indeed you was minded to undertake their Cause Yet how contrary hereunto are you in your too partial Account p. 305. where your Gentleman pinching you with this Question Can it be proved that Christ 〈…〉 the Guides of this Church with a power to make Laws and Decrees preseribing not only things necessary for common Order and Decency but new fedâ—ral Rites and teaching Signs and Symbols c. I answer say you that such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word which whether this be to the purpose of new fedâ—râ—l Rites and teaching Signs and Symbols will I suppose be further examined which on that account other are bound to submit to and to take such care of its 〈…〉 to admit none its Priviledges but such as do submit to them Here you are 〈◊〉 off from your Catholick Terms again and â—or
B. one might soon guess what their Sentence or Verdict would be If I seem here and sometimes elsewhere to digress a little yet I think in reason you should overlook it I would hope that in time you may be convinced of a greater Digression in the scope of your late Writings 6. If you and the Church of England will not be so favourable towards those distinct Societies that are not under your Church-Rules as to acknowledg them in Communion with you yet by what you and Chillingworth say I see not but they may be still in Communion with the Catholick Church and Members of it Knot talketh thus to our Reproach Charity maint part 1. c. 5. § 38. Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism at least by reason of their mutual Separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England But it is observable what Chillingworth says p. 255. Eighthly to that That all the Members of the Catholick Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which tho it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true Divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostome and Epiphanius that particular Men and particular Churches have upon an over-valued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continuâ—d Members of the Catholick Church Here let us suppose some unhappy difference to arise among your selves as if some were for the publick condemning of your Irenicum some against it some offended at those Ministers who appear not as zealous against Dissenters as you have shewed your self and others offended as much at you and them some taking offence at those that bow at the word Iesus or bow towards the Altar and others taking the like offence at those who scruple or forbear such Practice Suppose now the contention was carried so high that the disagreeing Parties refused Communion with one another hereupon and if it came to that I would know which of these should be the new Church Or whether both Parties might not yet be in Communion with the Church of England And much more may not the same Catholick Church hold Conformists and Protestant Dissenters And you give us this Note Ratinal Account p. 331. He that sâ—parates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick Now will you say those Rules and Orders about which all the Difference is betwixt you and the Non-conformists concern the Being of your Church I doubt you will never be able to convince many but the Church of England might be every jot as well without them But if it should happen that any Error or Corruption is to be found therein then you have more to say for those you here oppose Ibid. and pag. 332. which is therefore more properly a Separation from the Errors than the Communion of such a Church Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some Corruptions though if these Corruptions be injoyned as Conditions of Communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it follows not that I am sâ—parated from the external Communion of the Catholick Chuch but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches till I may safely joyn with them Which you illustrate there by a Comparison where you have these remarkable Words And if several other Persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own Safety c. So Chillingworth speaks as like you as if one had taken his Hints from the other pag. 298. He is for distiguishing not confounding these two departing from the Church and departing from some general Opinions and Practices which did not constitute but vitiate the Church More he hath to that purpose But that which I would specially note out of him here to shew the Harmony and Consent betwixt you which otherwise should have come in before pag. 269. A Man may possibly leave some Opinion or Practice of a Church says he and continue still a Member of that Church provided that whâ—t he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this Practice may be so involved with the external Communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this Practice and not to leave the Churches external Communion I cite such Passages as these because I would have the World know and take notice what Friends you are sometimes to poor Non-conformists That if any should now send an Hue and Cry after them as after Murderers you are willing they should take Sanctuary either in your Church or in the Church Catholick the New Church your second Conclusion speaks of being not so safe Now my second Conclusion is this 2. That many of those Societies which you condemn do not separate from the Church of England many of them have ordinary external Communion with you and though in their Worship they do not in all things follow your Church-Rules and Orders yet their Worship cannot be proved contrary but is agreeable to Scripture-Rule And as for those who are not satisfied to go so far as to hold external Communion with you yet having Communion with you in the same Faith it were a very desirable thing that the Bars to their full Communion with you were removed if they be such things as are not necessary And in the mean time possibly those New Churches are better than no Churches And indeed it is matter of wonder to me if you have no more Charity for such have no better Thoughts of them than of those idle loose profane Persons that wholly neglect and contemn the Worship of God that never go to any Church at all I would say more to this did I not think enough is said already Now I come to your last Conclusion 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God and in matters of meer Order and Decency and wholly as to Form and 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 Governours of the Church But would you not lead us here into a Maze a Labyrinth without any Clew to guide us out Let us now see how Pertinent and Material this is to your purpose Here first I must suppose this Question viz. How far or in what things is every Man bound whatever his private Iudgment be for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church And your Answer is every
teach not Heresy nor preach down Holiness c. and deny us not their Communion unless we will sin or a Conformists that will hold Communion with none but his own Party but separates from all other Churches in the Land Ib. p. 41. Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church and their Communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies as unlawful to be communicated with when it is not so If the former then will it not follow that condemning them as no Church is a Diminution or no Aggravation of Separation and the local presence of an Infidel or Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of their Friends If the latter which is certain then will it not follow that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn they are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them declaring it unlawful Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47 or 49. Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church when it is upon unwarrantable Cause or Reasons Ib. p. 31. Now how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them while they generally refuse shun and condemn our Assemblies Are there no true Churches to be found in the World that have no Bishops of a superior order over Pastors And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism and Separation from those true Churches which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers and Invaders of other Mens Rights Vid. Sacril Desert p. 60. Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species whether have any Authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts change Christ's Laws or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches Way of Concord p. 111. § 14. Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons which causlessly silence Ministers scatter Flocks and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful or unnecessary ill-made Terms of Communion ibid. third Part p. 13. § 43. And if any proud passionate or erroneous Person do as Diothrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications whether this be not tyrannical Schism First Plea c p. 41. And as we say of the Papists that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication may we not say so of any others especially if either for that which is a Duty or for some small mistake which is not in the Persons power to rectify no greater than most good Christians are guilty of their Church-Law says he shall be excommunicate ipso facto ibid. p. 104. See also Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47. or 49. § 8. Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin whether this be not heinous Schism First Plea c. p. 41 42. Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justify and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Ib. Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible or shall make Churches so great or Pastors so few as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight Teaching and publick Worship and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other that would be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances true Church-Communion and Pastoral Help whether this would not be Schismatical and much worse Ib. p. 44. Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully sâ—t over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causlessly and without Right silence them and command the People to desert them and to take to others for their Pastors in their stead oâ— whom they have no such knowledg as may encourage them to such a change Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no Bishop because another was rightful Bishop before â— Ib. p. 49 50. Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not 1. To approve the best 2. To tolerate the tolerable 3. To have Sacraments free and not forced 4. To restrain the Intolerable 5. This to be the Test of Toleration Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt in true impartial Judgment 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace Way of Concord third Part p. 144. Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest to divide his Subjects and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them and to keep them in such Divisions seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love and willing Obedience and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused Party which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest who are as wise and just and loyal as they Second Plea c. p. 76. § 24. Si in necessariis sit Vnitas In Non-necessariis Libertas In uâ—risque Charitas Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae To make a rounder number I may add from Mr. M. Godwyn his Negro's and Indians Advocate pleading for the Instructing of them and so admitting them into the Church a Book lately Printed and Dedicated to the Arch Bishoâ— of Canterbury Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it as he says in the Title-Page no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion as he says p. 91. Are all professed Christians absolutely bounâ— in their Places to endeavour the same by their Vow in Baptism and their very Profession Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion as well at home as abroad And do they not owe as much Service herein for Christ's sake towards their own Country-men as towards Strangers Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men as for Indians And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England Atheism Ignorance Error Profaneness Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us is he for any great Advancement of Religion that would send away all Non-conformists if there be thousands of them to his Negro's and Indians for this wise Reason that There is no want of their Labours at home FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London by the Author on the latter end of February or beginning of March last but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets they could not get through the Press sooner The Ingenuous Reader is â—â—so desired to pass by the Errata the Author being remote from the Press these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen viz. ERRATA PAge 5. l. 6 r. above P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele down P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater P. 63. l. 24. r. Church P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia P. 72. l. 19 20. r. betray P. 81. l. 35. r. for P. 83. l. 36 r. did he at all
just and charitable as to let us know your Reasons that if they be sound we may see Cause to alter ours I hope you will not say Then was then and now is now And can you now assure us that you shall not alter your present Judgment once again within twenty Years We read of Bishops that have cried peccavimus again and again and of Councils doing and undoing again and sometimes in less than twenty Years 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 If by Separation you mean a Separation from any Church upon any slight trivial unnecessary Cause as you define Schism Irenic p. 113. I am not for such a Separation But perhaps some may tell you that if you separate from such Assemblies as Mr. B. c. when you might have occasional Communion with them you do it upon far less Cause than many separate from those of yours where they are required to joyn in Practices more to be suspected If by Separation you mean any assembling for the Worship of God otherwise than according to your establisht Rule and so condemn the Assemblies of meer Non-conformists that are not of Schismatical Principles yea even their occasional Meetings and those kept off from the times of publick Worship in the Parochial Congregations I doubt not but the Lawfulness of such Assemblies is and shall be evidently proved from that Book Preface p. 72 73. Which will appear by these Particulars in it 1. Irenic p. 123. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such Practices 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. P. 124. As to things in the Judgment of the Primtive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Laws 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 sub mit to the Determination of the Church Allow but these three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Ad Trianos ventum est I hope now we shall come to something Methinks we have been too long beating abâ—ut the Bush. And yet I am kept off a while seeing you taking up a good part of two Pages to no purpose unless it be to perswade your Readers that I was unwilling to take notice of that which you cannot but grant I do take notice of viz. that you distinguish betwixt Nâ—n-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practices in a Church and entring into distinct Societies for Worship And it were strange if I had over-look'd or was unwilling the Readers should see these Conclusions of yours when you cannot but say I there cite the very Pages Rector of Sutton p. 30. A nd I can say I gave them what I thought might seem material Thâ—y will â—ind but two Conclusions in Irenicum your second Conclusion here is there but an Explication of the first And what I granted you is all you can make of them to your purpose here And did I not acknowledg again and again there that the Primitive and Reformed Churches were two of your Iudges And what Advantage you will get by that or any of these Conclusions we shall now see Me-thinks I have this Advantage that you here own these three Conclusions When you would have me to allow them it is to be supposed that you allow them your self Yea you say of them These are most pâ—rtinent and material Therefore I shall go over them again Conclusion 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such Practices which they suspect to be unlawfull Here 1. I urge you with what you say Irâ—nic p. 117. Withdrawing Communion from a Church in unlawful or suspected Things doth not lay Men under the Guilt of Schism You say Men may lawfully deny Communion with a Church in such things I say Men cannot lawfully have Communion in such things As King Iames on the Lord's Prayer pag. 44. It is a good and sure Rule in Theology in matters of God's Worship quod dubitas nè fâ—ceris So Hales Miscel. of Schism p. 210. Not only in Reason but in Religion too that Maxim admits of no Release Cautâ—shmi cujusque praeceptum quod dubitas nè feceris And Mr. R. Hooker Preface to his Eceles Polit. â— 6. Not that I judg it a thing allowable for Men to observe those Laws which in their Hearts they are stedfastly pâ—rswaded to be against the Law of God What he says further there of Men being bound to suspend their Perswasion in matters determined by Governours which they have not demonstrative Reasons against you very well take off Irenic p. 118 119. No true Protestant can swear blind Obedience to Church-Governours c. And certainly it is neither in a Mans Power to suspend his own Perswasion or lay aside his Doubts ad libitum noâ— is he allowed to act against his own Judgment and Conscience though mis-informed That Man sinneth without doubt who ventureth on Practices he suspects to be sinful though in themselves the Practices be lawful What the Apostle saith Rom 14. 5 14 23. puts the matter out of dispute Now to joyn in Common-Prayer is an unlawful or suspected Practice to some They take it to be polluted with Superstition Perhaps they take Communion herein to be a sinful Symbolizing with the Papists for what King Edward 6 and King Iames said of it And if you should tell them our Service-book is reformed it is possible some may now reply How can you say so Will you blast the Credit of and cast a Reproach upon our first Reformers Again baptizing with the Sign of the Cross and kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament as it were before the Sacramental Elements are suspected unlawful Practices to many And thus they are barred from Communion with you in Sacraments And therefore you had no Reason to slight others modest Expressions here as you do pag. 333. They judg they think they esteem them unlawful and they cannot be satisfied about them Though you are far short of answering all that hath been said to prove some things enjoyned unlawful yet suppose a Man ignorant erring and mistaken here not without Fault notwithstanding he must suspend his own Act till he be better informed and satisfied about it And here I would again mind you of those significant Expressions Irenic pag. 119. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments
limiting and inclosing the Catholick Church and if any disturb the Peace of this Church and here you do not 〈◊〉 the most peaceable Dissenters that only meet for the Worship of God and separate no farther from your Church than as it is not Catholick you go on The Civil Magistrate may justly inflict Civil Penalties upon them for it Is this your Mind that all that submit not tâ— those new federal Rites as they are supposed and teaching Signs and Symbols spoken of should be both debarred of Church-Priviledges and laid under Civil Penalties as disturbers of thâ— Churches Pâ—ace Then I cannot but wish that Governours may have more Moderation and Clemency or poor Dissenters more Faith and Patience than you shew Christian Charity herein But if they are as near the Primitive Church and as much in Communion with the Catholick Church as you are yea and in Communion with you still so sar as you are Catholick what great reason can you have so severely to condemn them I hope the Doctrine of the Non-conformists generally is sound their Worship agreeable to the Word The only Question then remaining seems to be By what Authority they do these things And who gave them Authority Now it is true they cannot pretend Authority from the Bishops but if they can prove they have Authority from Christ is not that sufficient If he hath called them to the work of the Ministry and commandeth them to be diligent and faithful in it according to their Abilities and Opportunities me thâ—nks Men should not deny their Authority And whether may not such Societies as you call nâ—w Churches return what you cite p. 179 180. out of Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n 9. as proving them to be true Churches They having the Word of God truly preached and Sacraments administred accâ—rding to Christ's Institution Now he saith as you have him where ever thâ—se Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to Humane Conveniences And therefore if you did not look only on one side you might probably see that you are no more allowed wilfully to separate from them than they are from you And as that Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared as you have it p. 186. 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 So why might not the Non-conformists and their Hearers be taken into or acknowledged in Communion with the Church of England without renouncing their Opinions or Practices they being certainly as far from Idolatry or Superstition as any of the Lutheran Churches As the Helvetian Churches with you p. 187 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 Even so because the Non-Conformists consent with you in Doctrine do not break them off from your Communion for their difference about Ceremonies May not several Churches differ in Modes and Forms of Worship and yet have Communion with one another Some Difference you cannot but grant betwixt your Cathedral Service and that in common Country Churches p. 146 147. You will not say the Churches in other Nations that have not the same Rule with you are Schismaticks No not though such came over into England and lived among you And what if the old Liturgy and that new one which you cannot but remember the compiling of and presenting to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used different Modes of Worship without Breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks Would you have called those new separate Churches that made use of the new reformed Liturgy And what if a Dutch Church was in your Parish Would you disclaim Communion with them because they had some Rules and Orders different from yours And what if divers of your Parish living near it should joyn with that Congregation would you thence conclude that they erected a new separate Church And as the Canon 1640. speaks of bowing towards the East or Altar That they which use this Rite should not despise them which use it not c. if now our King and Parliament like true Catholick Moderators should put forth an Henoticum make an healing Law enjoyning Conformists and Non-conformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for Substance to attend peacably on their Ministery and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Liturgy and Ceremonies or no without uncharitable Censures and bitter Reflections upon one another either in Word or Writing would you yet say that the Non-conformists Assemblies not following your Rules and Orders were no other than new separate Churches 5. I know no Laws nor Ecclesiastical Canons that the present Non-conformists have made And non-entis nulla sunt praedicata But if your meaning be that it is enough to prove them New Churches that they come not up to your Laws and Church-Rules and therefore are so 〈…〉 as they conform not to you I would argue thus Either Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary to Communion with the Church of England and to cut off the charge of being of a New â—hurch or not If Conformity in all things be not necessary here why may not sober Dissenters that own the Church of England for a true Church and profess the same Faith and worship God in no other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England as you say p. 160. Mr. B. declared in writing and as I told you a good Lawyer pleadeth Rector of Sutton p. 26 50. I say why may not such be owned as in Communion with the Church of England Why do you charge them with erecting new separate Churches meerly because they differ from you in some alterable Circumstances and separable Accidents not necessary to Churches Concord and Communion I see you dare not say that those things wherein they differ from you are any parts of Worship So they are of the same Faith and agree with you in all parts of Worship And is not all this with their owning themselves to be be of the Church of England so far as it is Catholick a bidding fair for your Reception of them and acknowledging them still in Communion with you And then why have you so many words of such being no good Christians because Members of no Church as pag. 104 105 110. f. If Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be not necessary pray tell us what is necessary and what not what things may be dispensed with and what not Rector of
Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supream Government If this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury do recant and retract his Saying in his Book of the great Volumn against Cartwright where he saith in plain Words by the Name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is of God's own Institution which Saying doth impugn her Majesties Supream Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly And I find something like this in that small Tract called English Puritanism c. 6. § 6. They â—old that all Arch-Bishops Bishâ—ps Deans Officials c. have their Offices and Functions only by Will and Pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm and they hold that whosoever holdeth that the King may not without Sin remove these Offices out of the Church or 〈◊〉 these Offices are Jure divino and not only or meerly Jure humano That all such deny a principal Part of the King's Supremacy which indeed you must hold as to Bishops if you can prove them an Apostolical Institution Though I know the time when you was of another mind Rector of Sutton p. 41. Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical Institution And pag. 40. you believed that upon the strictest Enquiry it would be â—ound true that Ierome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Theodoret Theophylact were all for the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and â—reâ—byters in the Primitive Church Now suppose the Civil Governours should determine the Government by Bishops as superiour to the rest of the Clergy to be only jure humano that they had Power to alter if they pleased and should require Assent to this their Determination and the Ecclesiasticks on the other hand should be of your mind resolving not to give up the Cause of the Church or disown its Constitution and should determine it to be Iure Divino vel Apostolico and to be owned of Men as such In such a Case whether must the former for the Churches Peace think themselves bound to submit to the Determinations of the latter Or to which of their Determinations must others submit For none but such as the Vicar of Bray could submit to both Thus I have gone over your three Conclusions which you seem to make great account of What great Service they are like to do you let the Impartial Reader judg Instead of my third Conclusion I would offer to Consideration Chap. 26 of Corbet's Kingdom of God among Men. of Submission to Things imposed by lawful Authority p. 171 c. Particularly pag. 173. Though the Ruler be Iudg of what Rules he is to prescribe yet the Conscience of every Subject is to judg with a Iudgment of Discretion whether those Rules be agreeable to the Word of God or not and so whether his Conformity thereto be lawful or unlawful Otherwise he must act upon blind Obedience c. with what follows in that Page And pag. 174. It is much easier for Rulers to relax the strictness of many Injunctions about matters of supposed Convenience than for Subjects to be inlarged from the strictness of their Iudgment And blessed are they that consider Conscience and load it not with needless Burdens but seek to relieve it in its Distresses You go on with me Preface p. 74 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 Now may not it be said here as Rational Account p. 336. beginning They did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of your Church and therefore are no Schismaticks but your Carriage and Practices were 〈…〉 them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And may not your own Words ibid. p. 356 be returned Scil. That by your own Confession the present Division and Separation lies at your door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient Reasons for your casting them out of your Communion And supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that Division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those Conditions c. Here it is to be noted that your own Words Irenic p. 123 124. objected against you Rector of Sutton pag. 30. are as follow This Scil. entring into a distinct Society for Worship I do not assert to be therefore lawful because some things are required which Men's Consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of Communion on that account in which Case their Separation is necessary Whence I inferred that if Ministers be wrongfully ejected and wholly cast out of their publick Ministry for such things as their Consciences are not satisfied in for not conforming in unlawful or suspected Practices it becomes necessary for them to have distinct Assemblies in this case at least if there be need of their Ministry Yet I cannot find that you have one word in Answer to this That one would think either you knew not well what to say to the Case of the ejected Non-conformists or that they were so very despicable in your Eye you thought them not worth taking notice of at all Now to your Answers 1. Our church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites Yet whatever you say here I doubt a Man though he hath his Child lawfully baptized is not secured from the Sentence of Excommunication if he bring it not to the Church to be crossed And though a Man would joyn in the Communion yet if he be not satisfied to receive the Sacrament kneeling by the Rules of the Church he is to be debarred from the Sacrament and then liable to Excommunication for not receiving And being once excommunicated I would know what parts of publick Worship the Church allows him to communicate in Thus there seems to be little more than a Colour and Pretence in this first Answer if the Rules of the Church be followed But you further say Preface p. 74 75. 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 the Church In the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema Now 1. If there be a necessity of our Separation
and doubted not when I was writing those former Papers but I could have made some use of it but I could not then meet with the Book for want of which I looked on those Collections as incompleat Truly Sir I was in hope the learned Doctor had retained that same Spirit of Moderation towards his dissenting Brethren which those sober moderate Principles he hath published and commended unto others heretofore spake him to have How strange is it that the Reverend Doctor should ever forget the Rector of Sutton And is it not as strange that he should be for silencing such a one as of Scismatical Principles Or to speak more plainly should be ashamed to own him in that worthy Work so full of Learning and Judgment meriting Praise rather than Censure But it is too plain here he hath deserted the Rector of Sutton and that in a Matter wherein he was in the right and had the strongest Reason on his side and hath given up the Cause to such an imposing Party as before e had condemned And what is the matter that the Reverend Doctor is so highly offended at me for desiring he would renew his old Acquaintance with one so near him and be friends again None in the World being nearer to him if that be true Proximus sum egomet mihi unless he will say and make that good in none of the best sence Ego non sum ego Now I am heartily sorry if we may see Reason to change our Opinion of him as he says we may of some Persons as well as Things in twenty Years time Preface pag. 76. Sure I am it either does or ought to grieve me at heart to see his Hand at such dividing Work who of all the dignified Persons in England I had thought was specially engaged and hoped also was as well enclined to promote Union what in him lay but not to widen Differences by pressing and pleading so hard for Dividing-Terms When certain Bishops were met that sought nothing more than that poor Athanasius might be oppressed Doliâ— Câ—lumniis malis Artibus Paphnutius seeing it rose up and took Maximus who as I remember had been a Confessor by the hand saying Neque te decet unà inter istos sedere So I thought it least became the Reverend Doctor to appear with the forwardest in condemning his dissenting Brethren whose Cause he had so well pleaded in time past He begins his Preface with a Story of the learned and excellent Bishop Iewell which I leave to others to examine But here I call to mind the Story of Bishop Lindsey a Scotish-Bishop who before he came to his Dignity had given this Question at St. Andrew's Whether things indifferent once abused and for their Abuse abolished c. Negatur Where he could bid Defiance to those that were for retaining such Ceremonies Yet afterwards he was a zealous Contender for them turning Disce pati into Dissipate And the great complaint of him was that in dealing with his Brethren he remembred not what he was once himself that he pittied not his former Case as some of them said in their Persons as Augustine did the Manichees greater Hereticks than he took them to be Let them be fierce rigorous against you who never were deceived with the like Error as they see you But as for me I can use no such Rigor against you with whom I ought to bear now as I did at that time with my self c. Thus I could wish the Doctor would be as favourable as it becometh him to be in his Censures of his Brethren who are very much of the same mind he was of once And therefore I shall once again apply my self to him Reverend Sir I do not very well know whether that Title The Rector of Sutton committed with the Dean of St. Paul's makes you more angry or merry This I know those Papers of mine went out of my hands without any Title who put that to it I know not The Title you say Preface p. 71. Was enough to make the common People imagine this was some busie Iustice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle And I confess the word Committed might puzzle those that could not English bonos inter sese committere there p. 7. But sure you had no thought of my being a Iustice of Peace any more than I should suspect the Dean of St. Paul's since I have heard of and seen what he hath both preached and written against them would frequent Conventicles However you rub up my Memory here that I have one thing to put you in mind of though perhaps you 'l call me a busie Informer for it in your Next And yet call me at your pleasure so that it may incline you to more favourable Thoughts of truly Religious Assemblies such as you have condemned as Conventicles and separate Meetings In the former times of England's Distractions and Confusions I being unsatisfied of the Lawfulness of keeping in publick either those days of Thanksgiving for Victories or of Fasting and Prayer for a Blessing on those Counsels and Forces that then were as appointed it happened that Mr. S. preached in my place upon one of these Fast-days I suppose at the Request of some but unknown to me The Text in Deut. For this is your Wisdom c. which some remember still though it is about twenty Years since when I at the same time had a private Meeting at St. Lawrence's as one called it This I confess may look something like a personal Reflection but my end here is that you would be pleased to resolve me these Queries viz. Whether ever you accounted this Act Schismatical preaching without the Consent of the Rector of the Parish Or the Assembly that joyned at that time Schismaticks Yet was here no breach of Order Or were there no Churches in England then or till your establisht Rule came in And yet Sir I had never the less Esteem of Mr. S. at that time or of others who were satisfied to go farther than I durst Again Whether was our private Meeting at that time a sinful Conventicle when the far greater part of the Parish was with him at Church I hope you will grant it was a lawful because a Loyal Conventicle But so much to your Reflection on the Title of my former Papers Now Sir consider whether we have not more just Exceptions against this of yours 1. The unreasonableness of Separation Here 1. Consider whether you do not condemn that as Separation which is not And is that reasonable all Assemblies distinct from yours are not separate Meetings as the World is used in an evil sence no though they differ in some unnecessary Mode or Circumstances of Worship many that ordinarily joyn with you in the substantial parts of Worship and meet not in Opposition yet I cannot discern but their Meetings fall under your Censure as much as others because they keep not to your establish'd Rule when Preface pag.
40. you speak of an unaccountable Separation without regard to the greatness or smalness of Parishes c. doth not that imply that there may be some Account given for assembling to worship God where there is a regard to this to the Abilities and Piety of Ministers and to the Peace and Order of the Church And therefore the thing is not so unreasonable as you would make it 2. What if I prove in examining your Three Conclusions from the Principles you lay down in your Irenicum and Rational Account too that many are necessitated to separate from your Communion Is Separation unreasonable when necessary Or will you allow others to say that there you have pleaded for unreasonable Separation 2. An Impartial Account c. you call it Here I might say I was glad to see you promising Impartiality in this Work having found so little of it in your Sermon but upon search Quantâ de spe decidi The Partiality you have discovered is so great and in so many Particulars that if I should ransack every Corner of your Book as you speak to collect all such Passages I fear I should be very tedious and irksome to you and other Readers But 1. May not some of the common People who have read either what Mr. Baxter says of it or Mr. Newcomen in Serm. on Nov. 5. 1642. take you to be partial in setting down the Jesuit Contzens Directions for reducing Popery Preface pag. 19 20. In that you take no notice of putting out of Honours Dignities and publick Offices such as are most adverse to Popery or of the outing of Ministers as unpeaceable proud obstinate disobedient to Magistrates And forbidding them privately or publickly to assemble And take no notice of that How easie is it as he says in England to bring the Puritans into Order if they be forced to approve of Bishops c. Here I think of your Words pag. 10. I do not say such Men are set on by Iesuits but I say they do their work as effectually So it would be considered whether such Methods do not effectually promote the Jesuits design of reducing Popery You may give us to understand Preface pag. 22. that the Declaration of Indulgence 167½ was of the Papists procuring but we must not say that the turning out of many zealous Protestant Justices and Ministers was any way by their means 2. Are you impartial in the Account you give of the Reformation in King Edward 6 and Q. Elizabeth's Raign Did the Reformation lie in those things wherein Dissenters differ from you Then you must say that those Churches which aimed at an exact Conformity with the Apostolick Times and as Chillingworth says took their Direction only from Scripture were yet so far unreformed as they wanted our Ceremonies Though it soundeth very harshly to say that those Churches who were more conformed to the Scripture Rule were less reformed But you spake more impartially and more to the honour of our First Reformers Irenic pag. 124. which you was minded of Rector of Sutton p. 6. Certainly those holy Men who did seek by any means to draw in others c. And by that Rubrick which left it at the discretion of the Minister what and how much to read when there was a Sermon it is evident others since have sought to bear up their Authority by their Names who have been far from their Moderation I cannot but wonder at your Harangue Book pag. 6. Is it credible that Men of so great Integrity such indefatigable Industry such profound Iudgment as Cranmer and Ridley who were the Heads of the Reformâ—tion should discern no Sinfulness in these things Could not Latimer or Bradford or such holy mortified Men as they discern so much as a Mote of Vnlawlawfulness c. It is granted they were Learned Pious Excellent Men yet it need not seem strange much less incredible that such worthy Men should in some things mistake Does not A. B. Laud tell you Reformation is so difficult a Work and subject to so many Pretentions that 't is almost impossible but the Reformers should step too far or fall too short in some smaller things or other I suppose you may have Bishop Cranmer's Manuscript still by you and are you of his Iudgment in all things I do not find it so comparing what you published as his Judgment in your Irenicum and what you have published in this Book as your own And Latimer that Zealous and Faithful Martyr as I remember at the end of his Sermons used to exâ—ite the Hearers to Prayer and therein to remember such as were departed this Life Now must we therefore conclude there is not a Mote of Unlawfulness in praying for the Dead that otherwise such an holy Man as Latimer would not have been for it Most true it is considering the Times they lived in and the Temper of the Persons they had to deal with it was the great Work of God to carry on Reformation so far by them But I cannot say but their Hearts were to have carried it on further if the Times would have born it More Shame it is to others that have had fairer Opportunities since and yet have not minded the Work History of the Troubles at Franksford printed 1575 reprinted 164â— p. 42. telleth of one that said Bishop Cranmer had drawn up a Book of Prayer an hundred times more perfect but the Clergy and Convocation with other Enemies would not let it pass And there followeth something further worth your noting pag. 43. that Bâ—llinger told Whittingham Mr. H. and Mr. C. asked his Judgment concerning certain Points of that our Book as Surplice private Baptism Churching Women the Ring in Marriage with such like which as he said he allowed not and that he neither could if he would neitherwould if he might use the same in his Church whatsoever had been reported Therefore say I such a Man as Bullinger would not have been for imposing the same on others As to the Reformation in Queen Elizabeth's time it was not brought in nor brought on with a rigorous Imposition of those things in Controversie as Ball against Can Part 2. p. 13. In the first ten Years of Q. Elizabeth there was sweet consent among Brethren I think there was not a Man that thought of Separation The pressing of Subscription and Conformity in the tenth year of Q. Elizabeth ' s Raign was that which broughâ— in all the 〈◊〉 and Contentions following Iosias Nichol's Plea of the Innocent p. 210 217 printed 1602 thus Some five Years together before that unhappy time that Subscription was so generally offered which is now some 18 Years past there was such Unity between the Ministers and they joyned in all places so lovingly and diligently in Labour that not only did the unpreaching Minister and Non-resident quake and prepare themselves in measure to take pains in the Church but also many thousands were converted from Atheism and Popery c. But when Subscription came
hearing of Sermons c and that frequently too to be lawful Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters pag. 98. No Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in Affront to them and the Laws Here you say in Effect that let Parishes be never so large and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable nor to be encouraged because not under you establish'd Rule But either you must grant it may be lawful to joyn occasionally and that frequently too with the Non-conformists or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers and say that it was better for Men to hear these than such as Mr. B. c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists lest any should thence argue from your own Words that constant Communion with them is a Duty I am thinking however that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship And let them alone to make their best of what you say you are sure will follow p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what Denomination soever the Persons pass Because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily though but in some parts of their Worship at first its possible they would gain far more Proselites by it than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo p. 156. A Man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church Yet you will look upon your self not only as a Member of the Church of England but as a Member of the Catholick Church And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church it may possibly sometimes fall out that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church or a French Church And if Non-conformists with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick as others you can freely have Communion with and while they differ from you in nothing but if the same was removed your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them and then for ought I know you may be obliged thereunto it may be a Duty Because you wholly overlook this I thought fit to take notice of it And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments pag. 157. viz. 1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church And here I ask If there be not as great an Obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace or promote it with all Christians as with all Men And they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donatiâ—â— which you cannot in reason suppose yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says Miscel. of Schism p. 208. Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists if occasion so require And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break why may not I be present in them and use Communication with them 2 The particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. And one would think such as have attained so much Knowledg as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of Wâ—â—ship might know it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformiâ—ts 5. Are you not partial when you lay this down p. 157. As one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience when they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority c. yet you tell us not what things those are neither the time when they were pressed thereunto and refused the same And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace that were reasonable made to them which they refused But you never take notice of it as any provoking Sin in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many And might not so much have been expected from them as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace May I not here return your own Words pag. 159. Was ever Schisâ—â— made so light a matter of and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate that for the Prevention of the one and the Preserevation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done Or as I would say that the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own Judgment but things doubtful or unlawful in the Judgment of others might not be forborn Now Sir are you for palliating so great Sin as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church when you know The Obligation which lieth upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church which you give us again p. 209. And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account p 324 Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent Dissenting Protestants say we The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and redress of Abuses And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship That the Church of England is not such a Shreâ— to hâ—r Children as to deny her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation c. Where I observe
you cannot well plead the Cause of our Separation from Rome without pleading something for Dissenters But to return to your Impartial Account p. 209. You say Violation of the Unity of the Church where there is no sufficient Reason to justify it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. All which returns upon your selves if the Arâ—h-Bishop's Words may take place And consider further seriously whether there be any sufficient Reason to justifie the pressing and imposing of those things which might lawfully be forborn when the imposing of them will certainly cause a Violation of the Churches Unity and Peacâ— Yet this is a thing you take no notice of unless it be to justify it As p. 76. The Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Indâ—pendents Aâ—â—baptists and Quakers And pag. 59. So it is impossible for them to answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Now lay these together and what follows but that as much is to be pleaded for the English Ceremonies and other things imposed which the Non-câ—nformists stick at as can be pleaded for the baptizing of Infants or against Re-baptization and I may add or against the way of the Quakers In the Fifty Queries concerning Infants Right to Baptism I set that down last which â— desired they would specially observe Scil. Whether the Anabaptist's Schism be not worse than their simple Opinion And whether it be not desireable and possible that some Way be found out and Terms laid down in which good and sober Men on both sides might agree and hold Communion as Christians concerning which something is proposed there from Mr. B. to others Consideration This the Author of the Anti-Queries took little notice of which engaged me to mind him of it again in my Reply p. 25 26. And yet I have met with no other Answer from him but that he is loth at present to give an Answer to it intreating all his Friends to take it into Consideration because it is a matter of Moment and common Concern T. G's Controversy c. epitomised p. 64. From whence I conclude if such Terms of Moderation were offered they would be hard put to it scarce know what to say for a standing off and denying to have Communion with Christians of a different Perswasion but they would have enough to say against your Terms and that from your self and not only in your Irenicum but in your Rational Account p. 209. It is a very necessary Enquiry what the cause of the distance is and where the main Fault lies and it being acknowledge that there is a possibility that Corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth Men to communicate with a Church in all those they will say in any Corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to Reason that the cause of the Breach must lie there where the Corruptions are owned and imposed as Conditions of Communion c. I should have hoped that at least you would have granted the conditions put upon Ministers to be very hard yet I find nothing but a deep silence here Tho Mr. Cheny says I am satisfied that it is in it â—elf a great and `dreadful Sin to silence the Non-conformists It seems here is a provoking Sin which you was willing to overlook tho once in your Sermon p. 20. you were very near it 6. Do you speak Impartially p. 378 379. when you tell us you wonder that none of us have taken any care to put any stop to Separation or to let you know where you may fix and see an end of it what Scruples are to be allowed and what not I will say nothing for those who are better able to speak for themselves but for my self I thought I had told you plainly and sufficiently out of your Irenicum if you will not be offended that I call it yours where I would have you fix Let Christians stand upon the same terms now as they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Do not add other conditions of Church-Communion than Christ hath done As Rector of Sutton p. 6 7. See also p. 59. If you make no new Terms and yet others will separate from you still the Sin is theirs but if indeed you add other Terms then beware that you be not found the Schismaticks Do not turn me off here as you do Mr. Baxter's Way of Concord You â—â—â—not justly say we go on in impracticable Notions here or dividing Principles When you have that Word Preface p. 38. As tho he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth You forgot that others might as well apply it to the Rector of Sutton for publishing his Irenicum And I hope you will not deny but we are backt with great Authority when you consider what King Iames tells Cardinal Du Perron by the Pen of Isaac Causabon which Mr. Baxter takes notice of Direct p. 752. His Majesty thinketh that for Concord there is no nearer way than diligently to separate things necessary from the unnecessary and to bestow all our labour that we may agree in the things necessary and that in things unnecessary there may be place given for Christian Liberty A Golden Sentence And there is nothing that can be proved necessary but it must be either expresly taught or commanded in the Word of God or deduced thence by necessary Consequence And that of the Lord Bacon Essay 3. is considerable who for the true placing the Bonds of Vnity would have Points fundamental and of Substance in Religion truly discerned and distinguished from Points not meerly of Faith but of Opinion Order or good Intention And Chillingworth is full of such impracticable Notions if they deserve to be so called p. 197. He that could assert Christians to that Liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs to Truth a most Heroieal Service And seeing the over-valuing of the Differences among Christians is one of the greatest Maintainers of the Schisme of Christendom c. p. 198. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter of playing the Pope it is for doing it too much and not too little Take away these Walls of Separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of Men for not subscribing to the Words of Men as the Words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no Man Master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no Title to it and let them that in their Words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their Actions In a Word take away Tyranny which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors and Superstitions and Impieties I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full
Church wherein they were baptized Or would you have such Re-baptized Or can you prove that unless Men renounce their Baptism they must needs own Diocesan Churches and the Parish-Minister howsoever unqualified whom the Bishop sets over them You that could find out a Mean betwixt Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation to wit a prudent and due Submission in lawful things as pag. 208. me-thinks it is a little strange you could think of no Mean betwixt tying People to their Parish Minister though notoriously unfit for the Ministry and suffering them to run after Quakers or Papists p. 330. I suppose you approve of that Saying of the Bishops you cite pag. 320. If he that was chosen were worthy they would consecrate him but not otherwise So you would not have Bishops obliged or forced to consecrate the unworthy neither surely should they ordain such or grant Institution and Induction to such Yet I see not but you would have People obliged to accept of them if instituted and inducted though it be never so apparent and easie to prove they are unworthy It would seem it is enough with you that we have the same Religion publickly professed pag. 308. Though some in place are never so great a scandal to Religion great Enemies to it whose Ministry tends to do more harm than good p. 123. 11. Are you Impartial or rather are you not uncharitable in your Censure of all those whom you condemn as Separatists and guilty of Schism As you say to the Romanist Rational Account pag. 613. â— 3. You expresly grant a possibility of Salvation in case of invincible Ignorance and dare you deny it where there is a preparation of Mind to find out and embrace the most certain way to Heaven where all Endeavours are used to that end and where there is a consciencious Obedience to the Will of God so far as it is discovered So say I to you But here do not in Effect charge them with not using the best means for a right Information otherwise you say their Non-communion in the Particulars scrupled may be excused p. 73. f. Therefore say I their Non-communion with you who yet acknowledg you to be true Churches cannot be the most inexcusable unless you suppose them to be the most deficient in using the means for right Information Do you not charge them with wilful Error or Mistake p. 373. There must be wilfulness in the Error or Mistake which doth not excuse For I say expresly if the Error be wholly involuntary it does excuse So you suppose pag. 140. That the terms of Communion are only fancied to be sinful through prejudice or wilful Ignorance or Error of Conscience Where we must understand you would have wilful joyned to each of these otherwise it would excuse And you add pag. 141. It is to be supposed that where there is no plain Prohibition Men may with ordinary Care and Judgment satisfy themselves of the Lawfulness of things required Therefore you suppose that all who are not so satisfied 〈◊〉 Men that want both ordinary Care and Judgment who suffer themselves to be so easily deluded p. 142. f. Here I meet with a Letter of some old suffering Non-conformists being an Answer tò what a Reverend Conformable Divine had written to them Some Passages therein I shall transcribe supposing it was never printed that they may be new to you though written many Years since The second Course you direct us to of seeking Information but with all Humility and Prayer in the use of means but with all Indifferency lest halting with God as Balaam did we find his success we readily accept it according to the measure of the Truth and Integrity of our Hearts only we have cause to be humbled and fear our own Hearts for we speak of our selves we judge not others lest any of us yield without such serious search after the Truth as you advise and that for fear of losing what Balaam gained For ought we see there is small hopes of gaining Balaam 's ways by standing for the Purity of Gods Ordinances and therefore less Fear of halting as Balaam did in seeking and following after that way which exposeth us to the loss of all the chiefest Comforts of this Life and which if it be not the way of Truth we are of all true-hearted English-men the most miserable And further on they say Or suppose which God forbid that we were so void of Christianity and Humanity together as to undo our selves inward and outward Man without all Reason or Conscience yet will you pass the same Iudgment upon all those three hundred Ministers which in our memories have been deprived for that very Cause for which we suffer Were not some of them such as the Christian World never yielded more eminent Lights of Sincerity and true Holiness since the Apostles times And did Misprision or long Vse make such a fell adoe in their Hearts also as to blind their Consciences in this Cause Was all their Patience in this Cause for Conscience sake not a Fruit of God's Spirit in them but a Bastard of their own Spirit And Sir you may be informed how some of them suffered for Preaching and keeping Conventicles as they were called as well as for In-conformity Afterwards towards the Conclusion they have these words Consider whether you rightly take such things for indifferent when they do not suffer you to carry an indifferent Mind towards you poor Brethren which in them only and in no weightier Matters do differ from you And let me beg of you to consider it and once more to consider your own words Rational Account p. 614. But we have not so learned Christ we dare not deal so inhumanly with them in this World much less judg so uncharitable as to another of those who profess to fear God and work Righteousness though they be not of the same Opinion or Communion with us Remember this unless you will retract it The last point of Partiality I shall take notice of toucheth me in particular Preface p. 61 62. You say of that worthy Person whosoever he was who wrote the Letter out of the Country He seems to write like a well-disposed Gentleman He discourses gravely and piously without Bitterness and Rancor or any sharper Reflections c. Though he also reflects on your Irenicum yet there is no harm done You have the same from him as it were by whole-sale almost two Pages together Letter p. 15 16. which I return in small Parcels yet do you not pay Him off with such sharp Inveâ—ives as I have from you Preface p. 72. So now I come to consider what you say to me Preface p. 71. The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian-temper which the Author pretends to Whether is it your meaning that it is not wholly agreeable or not at all agreeable Whether not agreeable in all things or agreeable in nothing But is it not for Moderation in such
that any will prove Separation from the Church of Rome lawful because she required unlawful Things as Conditions of her Communion it will be proved lawful not to conform to any suspected or unlawful Practice required by any Church-Governours upon the same Terms if the Thing so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Which with more you have in that Page and the Page before it cuts off your third Particular Preface p. 75. Here now I have gained so much Ground of you Such are necessitated to withdraw from your Communion who must otherwise joyn in some unlawful or suspected Practice As Chillingworth p. 269. To do ill that you may do well is against the Will of God which to every good Man is a high Degree of Necessity And say you Rational Account p. 290. Can any one imagine it should be a Fault in any to keep off from Communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an Obligation to the contrary from the Principles of their common Christianity Here I assume they are bound by the Principles of common Chrisianity to keep off from Communion with you that know they should certainly sin if they held Communion with you because they should then joyn in suspected â—ractices and things which after Enquiry their Consciences tell them are unlawful Ergo you must say it cannot be a Fault in such to keep off from Communion with you Though I would grant them faulty so far as any keep off through Prejudice Error Ignorance yet so far as these are involuntary they are more excusable than to go directly cross to their own Consciences here So therefore such are necessitated to withdraw Communion from you who would certainly sin if they held Communion with you judging such Communion to be sinful 2. If you say here What is this to a positive Separation which is the present Business You shall see it is something towards it You are come a fair Step on the Way Once grant that it is lawful for Men or that Men are necessitated to deny Communion with you in unlawful or but suspected Practices which are unlawful to them and you come presently to the Point Allowing them to withdraw from yours you must allow them to joyn in some other Christian Assembly unless you would have them utterly deprived of the Worship of God and to live like Heathens As you say well Irenic p. 109. Every Christian is under an Obligation to joyn in Church society with others because it is his Duty to profess himself a Christian and to own his Religion publickly and to partake of the Ordinances and Sacraments of the Gospel which cannot be without Society with some Church or other So then Christians that cannot enjoy Sacraments with you must joyn with some other Society where they may enjoy them And further take notice of that remarkable Assertion in your Rational Account p. 335. and apply it here as far as there is Cause Our Assertion therefore is that the Church and Court of Rome are guilty of this Schism by forcing Men N. B. if they would not damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences in approving the Errors and Corruptions of the Roman Church to joyn together N. B. for the solemn Worship of God according to the Rule of Scripture and Practice of the Primitive Church and suspending I suppose it should have been and to suspend Communion with that Church till those Abuses and Corruptions be redressed And I observe further Ibid. p. 291. you would not have Men bound to Communion with a particular Church but in Subordination to God's Honour and the Salvation of their Souls Yea you say Men are bound not to communicate in those lesser Societies where such things are imposed as are directly repugnant to these Ends. And where Men should be forced to damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences would not this be directly repugnant And yet are not such bound to joyn together for the Solemn Worship of God c. You see now how far I have brought you even on your own Grounds how you will get off I know not Then might it not have been expected that you would have been more favourable and charitable towards the Assemblies of those Ministers and Christians that are kept off from you by unlawful Terms or at least such unnecessary Terms as are to them unlawful You speak more temperately Rational Account pag. 331. Here let me use some of your own Words there which something favour those Assemblies you now engage so zealously against By their declaring the Grounds of their Separation to be such Errors and Corruptions which are crept into the Communion of your Church and imposed on them in order to it they withal declare their readiness to joyn with you again if those Errors and Corruptions be left out ☞ And where there is this readiness of Communion there is no absolute Separation from the Church as such but only suspending Communion till such Abuses be reformed This they 'l say is very good But now in your new Impartial Account Preface pag. 46. you speak in another Dialect Would they have had me represented that as no Sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it c. What that which is as plain a Sin as Murder pag. 209. which is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. And yet on the other hand would you have them conform to you though against their Consciences Would that be no Sin Would God be wel-pleased with such Service as was done but to please Men while their Consciences in the mean while condemned them for it Can you say bonâ Fide that it is better more pleasing to God that Men conform to your Modes and Ceremonies though they have real Doubts of Conscience that they are unlawful or better they should live without God's publick Worship and Ordinances then to joyn with such as the Non-conformists That this is as the Sin of Murder Dare you go or send to all the Dissenters in your Parish supposing you take them to belong to your Charge and give 'm it under your hand that though they are still unsatisfied after all you have said and written though they believe they should offend God if they joyned with you upon such Terms yet I say durst you give it under your hand that they would do better to joyn in your way of Worship than in that of the Non-conformists though they have no more doubt of joyning with the latter than you had heretofore If you are clear in the Point have you done this Or why do you neglect your Duty towards them Why do you not endeavour to bring them in
not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches And were they for our English Ceremonies Do not the Lutheran Churches hold some things lawful and indifferent which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable As things indifferent and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches I do profess plainly says Chillingworth p. 376. that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only the Bible I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. 6. Is this Rule of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule Do you find the one agreeable to the other Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies which they yet held undetermined by God's Word Was it their Judgment that each Nation or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things Do you find this within the first five hundred years Can you gainsay those Words of yours cited Rector of Sutton p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I sâ—arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs which might be an Argument of Moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23. the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters and yet live in Peace And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters and yet communicate one with another The Primitive Christians retained câ—ntrary Observations and yet as Irenaeus said held fast the bond of Love and Vnity Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church or the best reformed Churches have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters Here comes to my Mind that which you say Vnreas of Separat p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of râ—verence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery Yet with King Iames Defence of the right of Kings p. 47c the Christian Religion reformed is as to say purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs And p. 17. Altho they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors c. Agreeable to Chillingworth p. 287. â— 82. But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it from Arch-Bishop Whitgift I cannot tell However T. C. latter part of his second Reply p. 172. could not discern it to have any Solidity but called it a single solid Argument seeing Transforming may be in part as well as Reforming And you have not improved it at all But what a strange Assertion is that of yours p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church but the same wich our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days And will you stand to this that they died Mâ—rtyrs for Ceremonies and for such Impositions as have thrust out so many Ministers that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth for which indeed they laid down their Lives I had thought that I. Rogers the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution had been a Non-conformist As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered And can you make the World believe that they suffered for Conformity And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause whether Conformists or Non-conformists Indeed they agreed well in Red in Blood and Flames who before had differed in Black and White But as you will have it p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds c. And p. 4. I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us c. I say you would persuade us that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers who were for Reforming according to the Scripture rejecting all things repugnant thereto only they would have the Church reduced as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors p. 17. Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function and other Church-Members into Communion observed in those Antient Churches or one as near as could be to it and further to make it good that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule Or if you cannot do this you must then grant that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers that is the Scripture and those Primitive Churches and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire neque Domini est voluntas neque purioris Ecclesiae mâ—s 7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule If never so many Councils if all the Churches upon Earth determined that they had such Power that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law we could not submit to such Determination while we believe the Scripture which tells us so plainly that they have no Power for Destruction but for Edification I subscribe to that of Panormitan Magis Laico esse credendum si ex scripturis loquatur quam Papae si absque verbo Dei agat Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over Godâ—s Heritage And tho the Laity or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there yet no doubt by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome he gives this for one good Reason Because they usurp more Power than the Apâ—stle Paul accounted belonging to him 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith Quibus verbis testatur fidem nâ—mini subjectam
esse â—isi verbo Dei And then it would be seriously enquired whether to require Assent and Consent to another Book besides the Bible a Book in Folio and to all things contained in it be not to have Dominion over Mens Faith Many are in doubt here whose doubts you have not so far as I can perceive yet resolved You your self must grant that the Churches of God have or should have no such Custom to tyrannize over the Faith and Consciences of Men that is Lording it indeed As here Vnreas of Separat p. 184. You cite M. Claude allowing or maintaining Tyranny over Mens Consciences to be a justifiable Reason of Sâ—paration And Le Blanc p. 185. And the Confession of Strasburg p. 188. That they look on no human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men. And Ioâ— Crocius ib. Ceremonies forbidden break the Churches Unity yet its Communion is not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. And Bishop Davenâ—nt p. 189 190. Who grants that Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences would be a sâ—fficient Reason to hinder Communion As he says Sentent D. Dav. p. 6. If some one Church will so have Dominion over the Faith of others that she acknowledgeth none for Brethren or admits none into Communion with her nisi credendâ— ac loquendi legem ab eadem prius accipiant the Holy Scripture forbids us thus to make our selves the Slaves of any Mortals whosoever they are our one only Master Christ forbids Quae hâc lege in Communionem alterius Ecclesiae recipitur non pacem inde acquirit sed iniquissimae servitutis pactionem Here I set down a little more than you cite as indeed it was not for your purpose To these you agree P. 221. Not but that I think there may be a Separation without Sin from a Society retaining the Essentials of a Church but then I say the Reason of such Separation is some heinous Error in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some Tyranny over the Consciences of Men c. This Tyranny over Conscience with you is an imposing of unlawful things Which I infer from those Words p. 208. A prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation With Bishop Davenant it is credendi ac loquendi legem dicere Now if this be the Case of Non-conformist Ministers that others would tyrannize over their Consciences will it not justify their Separation which is but a Separation secundum quid And if you deny this to be their Case be pleased to give a sound and solid Answer to those few Pages of the second Plea for Peace towards the end p. 116 c. Qui tyrannidem in Christianissimum vel usurpat vel invehit ille Christum quantum potest ê solio dejicit c. Amyrald in Thes. Salmur p. 435. §22 8. Will you say every Man is bound for Peace-sake to submit to the Determination of Church-Governours whatever his private Iudgment may be When his Judgment may be that such a Determination is against the Word tho never so many Churches and Councils judg otherwise And when his Judgment may be that submission to such Determination of Men would be real Disobedience and acting contrary to the Will of God If his Conscience be rightly informed then he opposeth the Authority of Scripture and the Iudgment of God to the Iudgment of Men as Chillingworth says p. 309. which is certainly allowable If his Conscience and Judgment be erroneous yet he must suspend the act of Submission to such Determination till he can be better informed or acting here against his Iudgment and Conscience tho erroneous he would greatly sin As suppose the Governours of the Church to have determined that we shall all declare our Assent unto that in Preface before the Book of Ordination That it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several Officers You could not have submitted to such Determination while your Judgment was the same as when you wrote your Irenicum This is evident from what I noted thence Rector of Sutton p. 41 66. Nothing can be more evident than that it rose not from any divine Institution c. Could you have dissembled with God and Man for Peace-sake But more of this afterwards But I am thinking you may possibly object That you speak of things supposed to be left undetermin'd whereas I Instance here in a matter that the Word determines Yet I hope this may be more convincing Let us for this once suppose that you could now prove from Scripture that the Bishops Office is distinct from that of Presbyters yet I hope you will grant me that you could not have submitted to such Determination of the Church while you believed no such thing And then I have what I would have Every Man cannot lawfully submit to the Churches Determination though it be according to the Scripture that is so long as his Judgment is the Determination is without and against Scripture then must not the same be said of such Determination as is besides the Scripture I know you will not say the Churches Word is above God's So you see how this part of your Rule falls short of what you aim at One thing you have under this Rule Irenic p. 124. I should take a little notice of some-where and let me do it here There must be a Difference made say you between the Liberty and Freedom of a Man 's own Judgment and the Authority of it So by being under Governours a Man parts with the Authority of his Iudgment but you would not have him deprived of the Liberty and Freedom of his Judgment otherwise to what purpose is this distinction brought Now I would not be so uncharitable as to think that by the Liberty of a Man 's own Iudgment you could mean a Liberty of professing and declaring contrary to his own Judgment in Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours for the Churches Peace And therefore I say your Rule here is short and reacheth not to our Case 2. You say in this last Conclusion that in Mâ—tters of meer Order and Decency every one for the Churches Peace is bound to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Here 1. This is readily granted if by Matters of meer Order and Decency you understand Matters of meer Order and Decency As you seemed to understand no more when you wrote your Iren. For there you distinguish betwixt Ceremonies and Matters of meer Decency and Order for Order-sake And you further say that Matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for Actions significative their Lawfulness may with better Ground
Grants says Gurney Vind. of 2 d Com. 45. The want of an Affirmative is Negative sufficient Then may not Men question whether the Governours of the Church have such a Power from Christ till they can prove it If Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I have commanded you doth not imply that the Governours of the Church may teach and command more than they have his Word and Warrant for I can think of no other Text more likely for the purpose than that 1 Cor. 14. 40. Let all things be done decently and in Order Upon which Mr. F. Masoâ— grounded The Authority of the Church in making Canons and Constitutions concerning things indifferent printed 1607. But here you will fall short too For I suppose the Jews were as well bound to perform the Worship of God decently and in order yet that was no Warrant or Allowance for their bringing in other Rites and Ceremonies into God's Worship than what God himself had appointed And what if Church-Governours forbad the Use of such Ceremonies Would it be to sin against this Rule Cannot the Worship of God be performed decently and in ordâ—r without them Antecedently to any Determination of Christ's Governours Men are bound to worship God decently and in Order but none are so bound to use such Ceremonies in God's Worship as was hinted before And that these differ tâ—to genere from Matters of Order and Decency may appear in that if we suppose them approved of God they are Matters of an higher Nature than things meerly decent that is they are pious and religious not only finally but formally that a Man would do amiss that used them only as decent neglecting the spiritual Signification of them And then will it not follow that if they be not approved and allowed of God it is worse for Governours to appoint and command them than if they commanded some simple indecent thing in God's Worship As Superstition or false Worship caeteris paribus is worse than a meer Indecency 3. It would seem by what we reade Gal. 2. 11 14. that the Apostle Peter had no Authority to appoint the Observation of such things Yet his Power was as great as any Church-Governours now can pretend to with Reason 4. If Church-Governours have such a Power as you say of Men's separating upon account of their Scruples Vnreason of Separation pag. 379. which I answered before pag. 29. where can you stop them from appointing new Ceremonies And where will you fix as to the use of them And what Assurance can you give us that we shall see an End of them that they will never appoint more Notwithstanding what you say p. 388. by the same Power that the Church hath decreed these she may decree more Rites and Ceremonies as indifferent as these and how many who can tell And being once decreed you must think you are bound to submit to such Deterâ—ination who are to be Iudges whether such or such Ceremonies be rightly determined and appointed You well know what was said Commiss Account p. 71. Not Inferiours but Superiours must judg what is convenient and decent So if the Governours of the Church once judg all those Ancient Rites of the Christian Church we ever read of with many new ones of the Church of Rome as many as they could refine and purge from Popish Superstition to be all decent and convenient then must you not submit to them all Though it would be a Sign that Religion was far past the Meridian in the Church as T. Fuller says where she can hardly be seen for the length of her own Shadow As you plainly declare from another p. 184. that Separation is not warranted upon the Account of bare Ceremonies although many more were enjoyned so you must say that Submission to them is a thing not to be denied though many more were appointed And therefore I say suppose and grant that the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint such Ceremonies and you know not where they and you shall stop And this Power you grant in your subscribing to the 39 Articles For Art 20. saith The Church hath Power to decree Rites or Cerâ—monies without liâ—â—iting any Number Tho this Clause was not extant in the Articles of Edw. 6 and Q. Elizabeth Here now I fall upon those two Reasons you give Vnreâ—s of Separation p. 16 17. for the appointing of these Ceremonies 1 Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity Therefore they retained theâ—e few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church And yet you cannot deny but other Ceremonies more Ancient than some of these are laid aside and the most Ancient of these is so in use with you as it was not used at first and was so in use in the Antient Church as it is not in use with you Such is your Respect and Reverence here to the Ancient Church 2. To manifest the Justice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies the Papists see they did not break Communion with thâ—m for mâ—er indifferent Things As you have it before p. 14. Our Bishops proceeded in our Reformation more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer Opposition to Popery Now I would be satisfied whether it might not shew more Respect and Reverence to Antiquity if more Ceremonies were retained and the more Ancient rather than such as came up in latter times as Standing may be proved before the Ceremony of Kneeling And whether there are not many Ceremonies in use among the Papists capable of having a good signification put upon them and so as innocent and indifferent as these and therefore for the Reason you have given to be retained or entertained amongst us to shew our Iustice and Equity towards them that we proceed not in meer opposition to Popery that we break not with them about meer indifferent things And will you be for that peaceable Design for going as near to Rome as you can without Sin But thus upon your Principles the Church might be Reformed I will not call it but Transformed borrowing the Word from you and become as Ceremonious as was the Iewish Church under the Law And they that highly applaud such Ceremonies as mighty Helps to Devotion c. may next tell the World that the Iewish Church was priviledged above the Christian as having more such Helps unless they have a Face to say that the Ceremonies of Gods appointment were no such Helps as those of Man's Inventions And consequently that latter Churches which some take to have been less pure had some Helps which Christ and his Apostles were not mindful to supply the Primitive Church with 5. It would seem that if Christ had approved of the appointing of such things he would rather have appointed them himself in his Word which would have gained them more repute and esteem and might have ended the dispute about them There is the same Reason for all Churches to observe and practise them as for
made parts of Divine Worship you will excuse those that cannot submit to them unlâ—ss they could be proved of Divine Institution If they are things not 〈◊〉 by the Word according to what you have p. 116. they should not be 〈◊〉 they are not bound to use them No Church-Governours upon Faith havâ— suâ—h a Power to bind men to things not 〈◊〉 by the Word If their 〈◊〉 enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid as the making of any nâ—w part of Worship they are ipso facto null and void King Iamâ—s 〈…〉 Right of Kings p. 428. It is moreover granted If a King sâ—all command any thing dirâ—ctly contrary to God's Word and tending to the 〈◊〉 of the Church that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for thâ—ir Obedience but also expresly to forbid their Obedience For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King 's here and abâ—ve Christâ—â— And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col 2. may be appliâ—d hâ—re to Non-submission in such case as is spoken of to the Determination of Church-Governous Deirectatio autem illa Obedienâ—iae 〈◊〉 est in Obedientia nedum resiâ—tentia sed tantum Supremi Iuris 〈◊〉 quâ—d Magistratus sibi 〈◊〉 adrogat out userpat debita Recognitio It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours but rather a due Recogniâ—â—â—on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord. For haste I have here thrown things on heaps A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion 3. You say Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination Here I offer to your Consideration what follows 1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice that is live peaceably under it and obey Governours in Licitis Honestis so far as God's Law allows should be urged further to submit their Iudgment to the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy when determined by Governours whatever their private Iudgment may be Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination whose Judgment was That the Bishops and Priests were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as you cite his MS. Irenic p. 392. could such a Man as Dr. Holland and I need not tell you what he was who called Dr Laud a Schismatick for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy saying It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture c. who in effect says the contrary Thes. Salmur p. 8. § 33. Neque verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus c. And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops as of Bishops I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account whether you could submit to such Determination For there pag. 298. You speak of it as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts without any such Subordination or Dependance Here I would be satisfied how you would expound Homogeneal Parts and so you seem to expound them p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian Episcopatus unus appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church But then should not all that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them be supposed to be Bishops and no one Bishop above another otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them how is there Episcopatus unus And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts And thus will it not follow that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them which you here suppose to be with a Parity should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Manâ—or or Lordship in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake if not Diocesan Churches too 2. Whether you could submit and declare your Assent if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution and should require your Assent Would you then disown and discard such whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours For what you say Vnreasonableness of Separation Preface p. 89. we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them For there you tell us The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause They must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it that is for Union or the Churches Peace so as to condemn its Constitution c. Then you cannot say that wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of Governours whatever his private Judgment be Here I have put a Case wherein you could not submit 3. What if the whole Work of Government belonging to the Pastor's Office was quite taken out of their hand that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop and such Copy-holders as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision without doing any thing towards a Reformation Should they betrary the Churches Interest for the Churches Peace May they not endeavour any Alteration not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power and by humble Petition for Redress 4. Is every one bound to submit wholly as to the Form of Government to Governours Determination Then what if our Civil Governours and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments and Determinations I make no question but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren lately to be by God's
it concerns not me to descant on the whole but especially to enquire and observe whether it be not as I said Or as Calvin wrote to Dr. Cox and his Brethren Ep. 165. as you have it not far from the beginning of your Book p. 12. That the state of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him write with greater sharâ—â—â—ess than otherwise he would have done I think we shall see it plain That either they had not the true state of our Case laid before them or if they had then they wrote very much besides it I suppose their Letters here faithfully translated The First Letter is from Monsieur Le Moyne THo I find a Letter of the same Persons formerly published wherein it is said he thought himself abused sundry Passages in his Letter moderating and regulating the Episcopal Power being left out Bâ—â—as Vapul p. 80 81. Yet I must not suppose any such thing here unless I could prove it But from what is here published P. 404. I could not have persuaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a Man could not be of her Communion without hazarding his own Salvation It is a very strange thing to see them come to that Extream as to believe that a Man cannot be saved in the Church of England And p. 408. Is it not horrible Impudence to excommunicate her without Mercy for them to imagine that they are the only Men in England that hold the Truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held From hence is it not plain now that either he understood not the matter of difference betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists or else did here forget it Had M. Le Moyne consulted and perused your Sermon which possibly was the Occasion of those Writings that M. de L' Angle seems to condemn unseen p. 420 423. had he only read what you say p. 21. I will not make the Difference wider than it is 1. They unanimously confess they find no Fault with the Doctrine of our Church and can freely subscribe to all the Doctrinal Articles Well then the case is vastly different as to their Separation from us and our Separation from the Church of Rome 2. They generally yield That our Parochial Churches are true Churches They do not deny That we have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments 3. Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful Or had he seen what you write here p. 95. how all your Answerers agree with you in the Doctrine of the Church of England and as Dr. Owen says we are firmly united with you in Confession of the same Faith had these things been in his Eye surely he could not have written at this Rate as if we thought we were the only Men in England that held the Truths necessary to Salvation So I leave you your self to judg whether M. Le Moyne goes not upon a great Mistake Sure I am that either he or you have greatly misrepresented us as every ordinary Capacity by comparing what I have here set down may readily discern If what he says of us here be true what you say must needs be false Now I do the more willingly appeal to your Iudgment here touching these things whereof we are accused because I know you are expert in the Questions that are amongst us Say then Whether ever any such Controversie arose betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists Let me hear of one Non-conformist that ever asserted That a Man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England or that no Conformist could be saved Yet this learned Professor would have them all to be such As is too plain from that very odious Parallel which he says p. 408. One might make betwixt them and the Donatists Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an Opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved As for his comparing them with Popâ— Victor some will smile at it as more fitly agreeing to others that are for excomunicating Christians for meer Non-conformity in matters of Ceremonies And no better will the Comparison hold betwixt them and the Audeans or Anthropomorphites as whosoever reads what Antiquity says of them may perceive If they were against rich Bishops that is not to the Point If our Bishops would be content with their Riches and quit their claim of Divine Right till it can be proved or not require our Acknowledgment of it before we believe it nor impose such things on us as we are sure and can prove from what they wrote the Apostles would never have imposed whose Successors they pretend to be then I doubt not we could accord with them So that here also he shoots wide And thus alas by overdoing he hath hitherto done just nothing for you I know Sir that you to whose Iudgment I here appeal must needs acquit us from that Vncharitableness we are here charged with Or we are not the Men he speaks of we are not arrived to that horrible Impudence to excommunicate all of your Communion without Mercy We are not like the Donatists or those of the Roman Communion not as here we are represented And so if Dr. Potter's word â—ay be taken we are to be cleared and acquitted from the charge of Schisâ—â— As he says Answer to Charity mistaken Sect. 3. p. 75. printed at Oxford 1633. This clears us from the Imputation of Schism whose Property it is witness the Donatists and Lucifâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Can you find any such Separatists amongst those who yâ—t remain firmly united to you in the Confession of the same Faith We differ only as I said Rector of Sutton p. 31. as to certain external accidental Forms Modes and Rites which the Church of England cannot say are necessary and appear to us as things at least to be suspected and yet they are obtruded and imposed with as much Rigor and Strictness as if they were most highly necessary We doubt not yet but there are sober and truly pious Conformists whose Consciences do not scruple the Lawfulness of these things But here I would say as Dr. Potter ibid p. 76. To him who in simplicity of heart believes them to be lawful and pracfiseth them and withal feareth God and worketh Righteousness to him they shall prove Venial Such a one shall by the Mercy of God either be delivered from them or saved with them But he that against Faith and Conscience shall go along with the Stream to profess and practise them because they are but little Onâ—s his Case is dangerous and witout Repentance desperate So though the learned Professor compares the present Dissenters because he knows them not with the Donatists I may here borrow an Expression of
too p. 287. By that Rule whosoever regulates his Life and Doctrine or Belief I am confident that though he may mistake Error for Truth in the way he shall never mistake Hell for Heaven in the End And yet further should you not consider whether it be not more agreeable to the Revealed Will and Mind of Christ that you should suffer some Taâ—es to grow rather than pluck up good Corn with them Reverend Sir It having so happened that poor I have been called out among others an hundred times fitter to shew my Opinion touching the Matter you have started I cannot but think as I here declare so far as my Judgment serves you might have employed your Time your Learning and Parts to much better purpose than you have done in this late Piece of Work Surely my Life would be but sad to me if I could not find more pleasing Work than this that you have been an Occasion of engaging me in And yet I hope to have more Comfort in it at the great day of Accounts than I can conceive you to have of yours in that Day If you lay the Vnity â—f Christians upon Conformity too or Vniformity in doubtful and suspected if not unlawful Practices a general Vnion can never be had or hoped for If you would make the way to Heaven narower than Christ has left it many will be forced to leave you here But now if you would henceforth propose and promote an Vnion amongst Christians uâ—on Catholick Ierms we are for you and would heartily joyn with you And as that most learned and pious Bishop Vsher Serm. of Vnivers of the Church and Vnity of Faith p. 43 44. If at this dâ—y we should take a Survey of the several Professions of Christianity that have any large Spread in any part of the World and should put by the Points wher in they did differ one from another and gather into one Body the rest of the Articles wherein they all did generally agree we should find that in thâ—se Propositions which without all Controversy are universally received in the whole Christian World so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a Man unto everlasting Salvation Neither have â—e cause to doubt but that as many as do walk according to this Rule Peâ—â—e shalâ— be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God Now thereâ—orâ— do as he says ibid. p. 18. We for our parts dare not abridg this Graâ—t and limit this great Lordship as we conceive it may best fit our own turns but â—â—ave it to his own Latitude and seek for the Catholick Church neither in this Part nor in that Pâ—ece but among all that in every place call upon the Nâ—mâ— of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours And if a Zeal for such a general Comprehension and happy Vnion of Christians will to use the Words of Mr. de L' Angâ—e p. 424. briâ—g down a thousand Blessings of Heaven and Earth upon those that shall contribute the most unto it resolve now and hence forward to put forth your self this â—ay Put in for your share of Blessings I remember I concluded my former writing with a Collect borrowed from you Here I would say Amen to that Prayer with which Dr. Potter shuts up his Answer to Charity mistaken That it would please the Father of Mercies to take away out of his Church all Dissention and Discord all Heresies and Schisms all Abuses and false Doctrines all Idolatry Superstition and Tyranny and to unite all Christians in one holy Bond of Truth and Peace Faith and Charity that so with one Mind and one Mouth we may all joyn in his Service I add no more but that the Father of Lights would so direct your Studies and Course that you may do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth which is the Prayer of Reverend Sir Your humble and faithful Servant Iohn Barrett I more wish than hope that of these sad Controversies here will be The END Proper Materials drawn from the true and only way of Concord c. QUERY 1. WHether the Apostle Paul hath not clearly and fully decided the case against censuring or despising one another for things Indifferent Rom. 14 15. And if Men wiâ—â— not understand nor stand to that Decision whether it should be any wonder if they will not understand or be satisfied with our most cogent Arguments Second Plea for Peace p. 169. § 75. Whether they that say the Apostle doth not forbid such Impositions there can see Day for Light 1. Doth he not forbid censuring despising and not receiving one another and command Dissenters to receive one another And then must he not forbid such Imposition as is inconsistent herewith 2. Doth he not direct this Command to all the Church of Rome even to the authorized Pastors and Rulers of the Church as well as to the People 3. Was he not a Pastor and Ruler of that Church as fully authorized as any that should succeed 4. Is not this Scripture as others written for a standing Rule and so obligatory to Rulers still ib. p. 170. § 77. Did not the Apostle speak here by Divine Authority Are not his Words recorded here part of Christ's Law indited by the Spirit And may we think that any that come after him or to whom he wrote should have power to contradict or obliterate the same Way of Concord p. 152. 5. Do not his Reasons touch the case of all Churches in all Ages and not only some particular Persons and Case As he argueth from the difference betwixt well-meaning Christians as weak and strong as doubting and as assured as mistaken and as in the right c. If such weak mistaken Christians in such matters ever have been and ever will be in the Church upon Earth doth not the reason from their case and necessity still hold 6. How many great and pressing moral Reasons that all Christians are bound by are heaped up here Does he not argue 1. From Christian love to Brethren 2. From human Compassion to the Weak 3. From God's own Example who receiveth such whom therefore we must not reject 4. From God's Prerogative to judg and our having no such judging power in such cases 5. From God's Propriety in his own Servants 6. From God's Love and Mercy that will uphold such 7. Because what Men do as to please God must not be condemned without necessity but an holy Intention cherished so it be not in forbidden things 8. Because Men must not go against Conscience in indifferent things 9. From Christ's dreadful Judgment which is near and which we our selves must undergo 10. From the Sin of laying Stumbling-blocks and occasions of Offence 11. From the danger of crossing the end of Christ's Death destroying Souls for whom he died 12. Because it will make our Good to be ill spoken of 13. Because the Kingdom of God or Constitution of Christianity and the Church lieth in
whether are any bound to obey them at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions Way of Concord p. 111. § 15. And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority and impose them on the World in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks be not a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies ibid. § 16. Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship be not a Church Form of Divine Institution First Plea c. p. 8. And whether any Proof hath ever been produced that many Churches of this first Rank must of Duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association as Diocesan National c. and that God hath instituted any such Form Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions ib. p. 12 13. Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a political Sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the Power of teaching them ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-keys and leading them in publick Worship ibid. p. 13. And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less of many scores or hundreds such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or Bishop of Bishops had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion and mutual Assistance at due Seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes whose Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their Conversation and as a single Congregation may prudently in Persecution or foul Weather meet oft-times in several Houses so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses when they had no Temples and yet be capable of personal Communion as before described ibid. p. 13 14. And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith The Church of the Living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ c. doth he not here suppose as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino when they become but parts of a Bishops Church And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church ibid. p. 5 6. And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it as certain that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place ibid. p. 17. And see Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 75. or 69. Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved that God hath instituted any other than Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion whether must it not follow that none of the rest instituted by Man have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit or disoblige them from any of this Duty by just Authority Way of Concord p. 111. § 13. Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province into one only Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys or all essential to their Office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince First Plea c. p. 52. Or whether hath God made such proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws or whether God should be worshipped and Souls saved or his own Institution of Churches be observed Ibid. p. 53. Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches and Inferiour Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or Consent of the People or inferiour Pastors and these Bishops shall by Laws or Mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws or Mandates as such ibid. p. 80. Bishop Bilson of Subject p. 399. grants The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor ibid. p. 79. And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence and so a Duty to consent yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches till they do consent ibid. p. 80. Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God And doth not Dr. Blondel de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl. beyond Exception prove it with more ib. p. 81. Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command as such Or whether is it Schism to disobey it ibid. p. 82. Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses That he who separateth from a Parish-Church separates from no Church Sacril Desert p. 24. Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks if we renounced Communion with all other Churches except Parochial and Conformists And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism Whether ouâ—s that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us that