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
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
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
abroad how did it shake the Heavens and darken the Skies O Lord my Heart trembleth to think upon it how many godly and worthy learned Preachers were silenced deprived and greatly disgraced How were the holy Ministers divided and distracted How were the Christian Subjects grieved and offended and the Papists and wicked Men encouraged and emboldened What a damp brought it to all Godliness and Religion and since that time what horrible Wickedness Whoredom Drunkenness and all shameless Filthiness and what grievous Plagues of God one succeeding another have followed evey good Christian Subject must needs see and lament So he who was no Separatist And I hope Sir you and I are agreed that these things last spoken of were no part of England ' s Reformation And now Sir give me leave to tell you in some of your own Words Preface p. 47. We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had no more to plead for it than we have indeed to plead for such mischievous Impositions And this seems to have been the sence of the Queen's Council in that Letter which the modest Enquiry p. 16 17. lays before you Therefore Sir I beseech you as you would not blast the Credit and Honour of the Reformation place it not in such things as rather brought a Deformation on us Here I know not well how to reconcile you to your self For p. 365. You say It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine And Preface p. 53 Although the Arguments are very plausible one way yet the Objections are very strong another The Union of Protestants the Ease of scrupulous Consciences the providing for so many poor Families of ejected Ministers but not a word of providing for so many poor Congregations and dark corners of the Land that have need of them Are great Motives on one side But the weighty Considerations on the other side pag. 54. And double in number too as you reckon So here I see your Mind as you hold the Scales you might and would determine that there is no sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion which in the great Wisdom of our Church were setled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless For certainly those Arguments that are only plausible with you would not weigh down such as are strong and cogent nor a few Motives weigh down more weighty Considâ—rations But then what did you think of when you put that Question Preface p. 81. Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies and some late Declarations and doubtful Expressions beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences and the Peace and Stability of this Church And how happy had England been if such things had not been so over-valued As to this material Question you deliver your Opinion you say freely and impartially How Sir what Are you for altering what was setled in so great Wisdom by Men of so great Integrity such indefatigable Industry such profound Iudgment Is this for the Honour of our Reformation Is not this to blast the Credit of the Reformation I shall not take upon me to animadvert upon the whole of your Answer to this material Question presuming it will be scann'd by some of better Judgment Only one or two things I cannot but take notice of So I heartily thank you for that P. 82. 3. Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all Exceptions and they ought to be so administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension only here I would say Duty in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a Freedom in joyning in a full Communion Now thanks for thus much and hold to it Sir Tho I have two great and learned Men of the Church of England worthy of Note with you just at hand that grant as much of other parts of God's Worship as you do of Sacraments scil that they should be free from all Exceptions See Hales of Schism in Miscel. p. 216 217 218. And you were once of his Mind Irenic p. 120. And Chillingworth p. 180. If all Men would believe the Scripture and freeing themselves from Prejudice and Passion would sincerely endeavour to find the true Sence of it and live according to it and require no more of others but to do so nor denying their Communion to any that do so would so order their publick Service of God that all which do so may without Scruple or Hypocrisy or protetestation against any part of it joyn with them in it who does not see that c. Again I cast my Eye on that p. 87. where you would have indulged Persons to pay Twelve pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which you say cannot be complained of as any heavy Burthen Which such will not thank you for You would have them indulged and not indulged And is Twelve Pence a Week no burden to those that with hard Labour have much ado to maintain their Families can scarce clear Twelve Pence per Week See what it is to be rich in this World that makes some insensible of the low Estate others live in And would you have Servants thâ— polâ—â—d too tho their Wages may not amount to so much But now at last I come to that which I said makes you hardly reconcileable to your 〈◊〉 Preface p. 92. Such a Review made by wise and peâ—â—â—able Mâ—n not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far froâ— being a Disâ—onâ—ur to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it And the likâ— you 〈◊〉 say of removing those Bars to Communion in Saâ—â—â—ments becâ—â—â— it would be a paâ—t of Christian Wisdom Now lay things together Dr. Stilling says Preface p. 53 54. Tâ—ere are strong Objections and weighty Consideratiâ—â—â— against the Alteration of the established Laws And p. 364. would not take upon him to determine Whether there be sufficient Reason to 〈…〉 terms of Communiâ—â— settled And yet Dr. Sâ—lling says Preface p 82 92. That an Alteration would be a part of Christian Wisdom and so far from being a 〈◊〉 to this Church that it would add to the Gloâ—â— of it And 〈◊〉 on I put this Query Whether Man are justly charged as blâ—sting the Honour of the Reformation for dissenting in such things which it would be the Churches Glory to alter 3. Are you Impâ—rtial in the Account you give of the old-Non-Conformists as if it was their general Sence that Ministers were to forbear all
Preaching when 〈◊〉 In the Contents of your Book Part. 1 § 17. it is thus The â—ld Non 〈◊〉 Iudgment of the unlawfulness of Mens preaching here when forbidden by â—aws fullâ— cleared from some late Objections Which you undertake p. 78. c. That their Judgment and Practice was to forbear â—reaâ—hing in their Parish Churches while they were under Suspension I grant And did not the present Non-conformists follow them herein Did they not generally quit the Tempâ—es as well as their Tithes and Prâ—â—ts from Aug. 24. 62. yielding these to be at the Magisnates dispose They would not that you or others should call their Preaching as you do preaching iâ—â—pposition to established Laws whereunto they yielded as far as they could be satisfied it was lawful for them But do you your self beâ—â—â—ve that the old Non-conformists thought it unlawful for them to preach at aâ— when silenced Then you cannot take them to have been very honeâ—â— uprâ—ght Men who did so ordinarily 〈◊〉 from their own Principles Were not some of them glad of an opportunity of Preaching in another Diocess when they might not be suffered to preach where they lived And were not many of them for the exercise of their Ministry in private when they were denied liberty in publick Fr. Iohnson speaks of their sufâ—ering themselves to be deposed from their stated publick Ministy which you seem to overlook And so I think Bezâ— may well be understood of quitting their former publick Employments with whose Testimony you make so great a Flourish p. 21 22. What! is Beza for silencing and stopping the Mouths of such a number of faithful and able Ministers Would Beza even Beza at such a time as that be for silencing so many Preachers It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries That he expresseth no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places as he doth at their Preaching in opposition to the Laws To which I return Were not the Non-conformists generally both at that time and since for quitting their Places rather than holding on in publick to the defiance of the Laws They have desired as far as they could to avoid the exasperating of Rulers They were not for opposing Sword to Sword as Bradshaw has it they were not movers of Sedition nor have been to this day And would Mr. Baxter even Mr. Baxter be for their silencing yet he says in his Search for the English Schismatick p. 37. It is not their Judgment speaking of the meer Non-conformists that they are bound to Preach when by opposing violence or the offending of Rulers it is likely to do more hurt than good and once preaching to deprive them of all the usefulness of their Lives c. But I doubt not there are many Christians yet alive who can remember some of the old Non-conformists and their preaching in private Houses when suspended from Preaching in Churches One writes me word that Mr. Hildersam used to preach in his own House when silenced and two or three Families came to hear him Another special Friend helping me to a sight of some Papers of Mr. E. Reyner formerly of Lincoln I meet with this considerable Passage For me to preach in this Place and at this Time is no way necessary since others may do it and I my self tho put by here may do it as well and freely elsewhere as in New-England Ireland Scotland Holland yea haply in some remote out-wing of the Kingdom And thus God in his ordinary Providence doth order it that his Church gains much by this course of removing Ministers and transplanting the Gospel to such Places as never heard the sound thereof before and in the mean while they may have time to do much good in private c. And I think this was the general Sence of the Non-conformists that they did not look on the censure of Suspension if unjust as a sufficient discharge from the exercise of their Ministry Had they thought themselves bound to cease Preaching whensoever they were prohibited by Men they were honester Men than to act so contrary to their Judgment as they used frequently to preach tho more privately or in Places where they were not known when suspended by the Bishops But these things were not to be publickly talkt of then when the High Commission-Court was up and there was such Inquisition after their Meetings I have this Account of Mr. Simeon Ash from one whose Father 's House was as his home sometimes that when he was sought after by Pursevants coming to them they had Meetings in the Night-time Another a Minister tells me he hath heard from Ancient Christians in Ringly Congregation that Mr. Iohn Angier sometimes Minister there being silenced and having his Chappel suspended by the Bishop of Chester used to preach to divers in his own House till such times as he was removed to Denton I suppose there are some in those Parts yet alive that can testify so much Mr. Westowbye I well knew His Bible was his Licence The Courts could not take him off but he would be at his Work in one place or other Once after my preaching for him when he was scarce able to get into the Pulpit for Age and Weakness accompanying it he entertained me with a Discourse of much of his Life past the Troubles and Opposition he had met with in the World and the great Experience he had of the most encouraging Success of his Ministry under his greatest Troubles that in his Travels he could write to his Wife as he said that God bad given him many Children she knew not of But to enquire after the Practice of particular Persons would be a tedious and endless Work You have the Iudgment of the Assembly under that Head of Ordination where they would have the Person to be ordained declare his sincere Intentions and Ends in entring into this Calling And his Resolution to continue against all Trouble and Persecution If that Assembly were Non-conformists then you see there the Iudgment of the Non-conformists But if they were generally Conformists then you see wee have the Judgment of a Learned Synod of Conformists for us 4. Are you not too partial in allowing Protestants to be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church and that frequently too to hear Sermons c. how far your et caetera may reach others cannot tell till you better inform them while you do not allow them to be present at the Worship performed in the Assemblies of Dissenters The former you are for pag. 108. To your Question there doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome I answer yea so far as he joyns in their Worship so far he has Communion with them Sure you will not deny a Man to have any Communion with you in hearing the Word preached who comes for that End and that frequently too So here you must be supposed to grant Occasional Communion with the Roman Church in
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
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
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-Non-communion in the Particulars scrupled may be excused p. 73. f. Therefore say I their non-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
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 non-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
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
noted Irenic p. 115. Some are blind Guides And may not People very well be startled with what Christ saith concerning such If the Blind lead the Blind both shall fall into the Ditch And have you forgotten or have you retracted that in Answer to Several Treatises p. 265. cited in Rector of Sutton p. 61. Men may have reason to question if not the Skill yet the Sincerity of their Guides and though they must have some may seek new ones The ignorant follow their Guides only upon the opinion of their Skill and Integrity and when they see reason to question these they know of no Obligation to follow their Conduct over Rocks and Precipices And yet is it now a loose Principle some the People are to mark and avoid Rom. 16. 17. some they must not bid God speed 2 Joh. v. 10 11. There are three Cases you say Vnreas of Sep. p. 213. wherein the Scripture allows of Separation The second is p. 214. In case of false Doctrine being imposed instead of true ☞ If any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them c. Now do you not here make the People Iudges of such Heretical Teachers whom I suppose by an Ironie you call admirable Iudges p. 123. Yet for them to own and incourage such is to partake of their Evil Deeds If Mr. B. saith as you have it there Any one whose Ministry is such as tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification and to do more harm than good is not to be owned I wonder what you have to say for such when better may be had Camero speaks to the same purpose as Mr. B. pag. 327. col 1. Si non faciant quod spondet tanti Muneris professio deserendi sunt nam parendum Deo potius quà m Hominibus ut siquis Medicinam professus c. If any one having professed Physick should not cure but exasperate the Disease truly he should be forsaken and another is to be chosen in his room And what Peter Martyr says Loc. com p. 909. § 33. may fitly be applied here Vexant praeterea nos quod non publica sed privata discesserimus Authoritate neque considerant Deum cuique mandasse ut propriam salutem curet This you cannot deny but God has commanded every one to have a care of his Soul and that Men are not bound to lesser Societies as to their own Parishes or Parish-Ministers but so far as may stand with promoting the Salvation of their own Souls Who could speak more fully than you have done Rational Account p. 611. The main thing to be discussed is Whether the Communion of your Church or ours be rather to be chosen in order to Salvation The tendency to that ought to be the Rule by which we should embrace or continue in the Society of any Church Since the Regard Men ought to have of their eternal Welfare doth oblige them to make choice of the best means the bare remote possibility of Salvation ◠ought to have no force in determining their Choice in a matter of so great Importance 4. Many have not the least Doubt or Scruple but those Ministers which you would not have them to hear are such as God hath owned and still doth blessing their Ministry to their own and others Souls Benefit Many are well assured The Lord hath not yet forsaken that Ministry you would have them forsake Yea I have spoken with some on their Death-Bed who have sadly bewailed it as a great Sin of theirs that lay as an heavy Burthen on them and we use to say Hora mortis est hora Veritatis That they had despised and neglected the Ministry of such But it seems had they made their Complaints to you you could soon have satisfied them telling them It was no Sin at all but they had done well in refusing to hear such as submitted not to the Orders of the Church Though perhaps they would have thought it very strange that you could have allowed them to hear Romish Priests and yet should suppose it unlawful for them to hear Non-conformists 5. These would also wonder if you your self should at all question such Ministers being true Ministers of Christ and that Worship wherein they joyn being true Religious Worship they are confident you could not but acknowledg the truth of both these did but the Law of Man allow them And then for ought they know they are such in themselves and in God's Account For no Law of Man could make that to be true religious Worship which is not so abstracted from the Consideration of the Law 's Allowance No Law of Man could make those to be true Ministers of Christ who are not such or would otherwise be none 6. Because I suppose you will be ready to object here How is it possible for Order to be kept up if People may run after what Teachers they please I desire you to do me right I am only for their hearing such as they have reason to believe are allow'd of God whom therefore Men should allow to preach the Word And where the publickly allowed Minister is not such a one they are not bound for order-sake to neglect other faithful and sound Teachers and therein also to neglect their own Souls There is no Order Men can make in the Church that should be urged or stood upon against the end of Order against the Honour of God against Religion and the true Service and Worship of God and against the Salvation of Men and the ordinary means thereof And if the Sabbath was made for Man as Mar. 2. 27. and therefore was not to be turned to his Destruction much less should any human external Order be strictly urged and pressed to Men's Destruction Bishop Bilson Christian Subject part 3 p. 299. An. 1586. speaking to that We would have things done in order returns this smart Answer Call you that Order where Christ shall stand without doors till your Clergy consent to bring him in Though according to the order of Nature light Bodies move upwards and heavy Bodies tend downwards in their ordinary Course yet which Camero applies to a like case p. 581. col 1. § 2. this very order of Nature is inverted Nè detur vacuum Here I call to mind what you say pag. 198. Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty Inconvenience And me-thinks that Inconvenience the Breach of external Order which with you is Schism is a far less Evil if it be Evil in this case compared with the Mischief of Men's destroying their own Souls or neglecting the means of their Salvation There is an higher Law which to use the words of Camero Ordinem deserere jubet ut extremo malo irreparabili jacturae occurratur c. And qui tam justâ urgente occasione ordniem deserit reipsâ non deserit sed servat And that
Instance he gives there is convincing If a Souldier knew his Captain his Leader was for opening the Gates to the Enemy and yet followed such a Leader keeping Rank and Order so unseasonably he would shew himself a Traitor rather than a faithful Souldier The Disciples would seem to have been for Order there as you are when they were hindring Christ's Service Mar. 9. 38. Luk. 9. 49. Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbad him because he followeth not us Now I heartily wish even for your own sake from that true and due Respect I owe to you that you would more impartially examine what you have been doing and reflect upon your self consider seriously whether you are not forbidding and condemning some as faithful Followers of Christ as your self even in their serving Christ and serving their Generation What are your Thoughts of such as Iospeh and Richard Alleyn with divers others that might be named who kept to their ministerial Work and as you say of Father Latimer never repented them of it If now they have that Well-come home Well done good and faithful Servants enter into the Ioy of your Lord. How far are they above all your Censures And me-thinks it deserves Men's serious Consideration whether they pray as they ought Thy Kingdom come or whether indeed they act not against their own Prayers who indeavour to hinder the preaching of the Gospel a means of enlarging and building up God's Kingdom And as you declare to the World p. 394. you are one that believes a day of Iudgment to come which I would not once question I beseech you Sir think well of what that well disposed Gentleman as you call him says I think gravely and piously Letter out of the Country pag. 38 39. Let us bring the Cause before our Supream and Final Iudg. And bethink your self whether of these two things he will be most likely to have regard unto the saving of Souls which He bought with his Blood or the preserving inviolate certain Humane Institutions and Rules confessed by the Devisers of them not to be necessary c. And so much of your first Conclusion and mine Your second Conclusion follows Preface p. 73. 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 Here 1. I cannot but look on you as very unfortunate unhappy in this Cause you have espoused How oft do you greatly expose your self that what you urge agianst your Brethren may justly be retorted on you So here how plain is it that you look but on one side which as I remember you suppose those that differ from you to be faulty in Had you not one Thought that if you owned such a Conclusion as this I should be likely to tell you you had spoiled your Cause Nihil quod nimis satis that by proving too much you would in effect prove nothing of that you aim at Should you not have considered what an Argument you here put into the Mouths of the Dissenters against the National Church of England against Diocesan Churches and against Parochial Churches too 1. Will not many be ready to tell you that it follows undeniably from this Conclusion of yours that you have made the National Church of England and the Diocesan Churches therein New unlawful Churches because under divers peculiar Officer governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church as from other Reformed Churches If those are new unlawful Schismatical Churches with you that are under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical truly Primitive Churches as I suppose it must come to that Primum in unoquoque genere est Regula Mensura reliquorum what work have you made here What an heavy Task and hard Province have you taken on you Can you ever prove that there are no Officers Laws Rules and Orders in your Church different from what were in the true Primitive Church Can you ever find all these Officers Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Deans Chancellors c down to Apparitors in the Primitive Church Will you undertake to find there all our Ecclesiastical Canons even Rules for kneeling in the Act of Receiving for signing with the Cross in Baptism for excluding the Parents and setting God-Fathers and God-Mothers in their stead with a Rule for peculiar appropriate Vestments c. To say here that though you have peculiar Officers Laws and Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church yet you do not own your selves to be a Church separate from that Primitive Church will not bring you off For this many Dissenters likewise say they separate not from you but hold Communion with you in all that is necessary and further have more Local Presential Communion with you than you can pretend to have with the Primitive Church Yet you will have their Assemblies separate Churches while they worship God by any other Rule than yours though their Worship be as agreeable to the Scripture-Rule And yet can you or any mortal Man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolical primitive Church Again it will as little help you to say That you speak of particular Congregations or Societies for Worship For 2. Do you not here make your Parochial Congregations also New Churches If the Primitive Church had not your Liturgy were not bound to the use of your Book of Common-Prayer then you cannot deny but you are under a somwhat different Rule And are there not some Parishes that have only Deacons to officiate And may I not be bold to tell you that you can never prove your Deacons the same with those in the Churches erected by the Apostles According to P. Paul Sarpi of matters Benefic N. 27. Deacons were Ministers of temporal things You your self say p. 311. It was no properly Church-power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock Then are not Deacons that are allowed to preach and baptize c. different Officers By this time I hope you will be sensible what a Wound you have given to the Cause you take upon you to defend by this Conclusion which is my first Note upon it 2. At the first view and reading of this your second Conclusion I was willing to hope that then you would not condemn such Assemblies as Mr. B's who leave the ruling Work to you and are glad if they be permitted to preach and hear God's Word and do not separate from you but joyn with you even in Sacraments as well as other parts of God's Worship But looking farther into your Book I see my Mistake For you say pag. 98. as was cited before No Man denies that more places for Worship are desirable and would be very useful where c. 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 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
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
Sutton p. 27. n. 9. You were put in mind of it to inquire whether there be not some in publick Place not very well satisfied with what they have done who come not up to your Church-Rules As some read not all the Common-Prâ—yer they are enjoyned to read and yet had declared their Assâ—nt and Consent to the use at least as you would have it Some use not the Surplice some omit the Cross in Baptism some dare not put away from the Sacrament any meerly for not kneeling And yet you charge not such with Schism pag. 148. n. 5. yet have they different Rules or at least they differ from your Rules as well as Non-conformists And I know not whether you may not be understood to allow Men to go from their Parish Church pag. 145. n. 1. provided they elsewhere joyn with your Churches as Members of them What then is the parting Point from the Communion of your Church or the trying Point of Conformity without which a New Church is erected Here I offer this Note upon what you say farther pag. 148. n. 5. That many whom you condemn though not satisfied with such and such Orders of the Church yet continue in all Acts of Communion with your Church or in all that you will call parts of Worship and draw not others from it upon any meer Pretence no not at all though they dare not but joyn at other times with Non-conformists in that which they are well assured is as truly God's Worship and if they say in some Respects more pure you have not yet disproved it And therefore you should make good your word there and not charge such with Schism Or if you should say Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary that if Men differ never so little from those Rules it is to erect new Churches what woful rending work would this make By a Parity of Reason may not other foreign Churches be denied to have Communion with the Church of England How many that could not submit to these Laws and Rules without receding from their own publick Confessions Could the French and Belgick Churches assent to the Ius divinum of Episcopacy could they own it as evident to all Men diligently reading the holy Scriptures to be of Apostolical Institution And would not any one that reads the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Psaltzgraves Churches printed at London A. D. 1637 take them to have been averse from such Conformity as the Church of England stands upon You glory in the good Opinion of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church and their owning Communion with our Church pag. 96 97. And you make nothing of what hath been returned by way of Answer to Dr. D. Bonasus Vapulans is but a little Creature I confess to look on yet some that have read it do not look on it as nothing But if an owning of the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy and Re-ordination c. be made the Terms of their Communion with our Church how many Protestant Divines abroad that would renonuce Communion with us rather than be pleased with it upon such Terms And further if Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be necessary c. How many Parochial Ministers and Congregations as was noted before must be denied to be in Communion with the Church of England whom for the same Reason you must call new erected Churches For as one says alluding to that They who themselves were circumcised kept not the Law They who have assented and consented observe not the Orders and Rules to which they have given their Assent c. And yet as you have it from another The Priests in the Temple break the Law and are blameless Then must you not either acquit many Dissenters here or condemn many Conformists You see how fain I would have Protestant Dissenters acknowledged still to have Communion with the Church of England if it might be the difference being not in such things as belong to it as a Church If you took away those things which are as the Wall of Partition betwixt you and them your Churches would be as sound and entire without them And if you make them Sâ—hismaticks for differing from you in such things while they agree with you in all things necessary whether will you not make your selves or other Churches you would be ashamed to disown Schismaticks who differ from you in as great Matters as such Dissenters do Here let me press you a little further Keep to your own Rule Preface p. 46. As far as the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism reach Then it follows if the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in Mens varying from such Rules P. 209. You argue From the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church And now say you I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men. Had you put the Matter home indifferently and impartially to the Consciences of Men on both sides that is both of Imposers and Dissenters many could not but have thought in their Consciences you was to be commended for it But then had you not pleaded as much for Dissenters as here you plead against them I must grant they ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Unity would soon follow What Chillingworth p. 283. § 71. says of Protestants That they grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered Make this good of the Church of England and by my consent all we who have unwillingly appeared against you will readily and joyfully give you our publick Thanks What you say further p. 209. may thus be handed back again to you If there be no sufficient Reason to justify such Rules and Orders if they are a Violation of the Vnity of the Church you there make it a Sin as much as murder is and as plainly forbidden And therefore I do earnestly desire as you p. 213. all Parties concerned as they love their own Souls and as they would avoid the Guilt of so great a Sin impartially and without prejudice to consider that Passage of Irenaeus with you p. 212. That Christ will come to judg those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own Advantage than the Church's Vnity c. And if any indifferent Men had the matter put to them to decide who were more likely to regard their own Advantage whether some of you or such as Mr.
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
be scrupled Noted Rector of Sutton pag. 16. And thus far if you please you and I are agreed That Rules of Order not contrary to the end of Order should be submitted unto and that not only for the Churches Peace but also in Obedience to God's Command Let all things be done decently and in order And to such orderly Determinations what Camero says pag. 314. col 1. may in some sort be applied Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae at Leges respectu Dei nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia Deus impâ—ravit 2. But I observe that in other Writings since your mind is changed and you have learned now to confound what before you would have distinguished that is your Rites and Ceremonies and Matters of Order and Decency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. So you say in your New Account or Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 393. We declare that they are appointed only for Order and Decency And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you Of which there hath been and is so great dispute Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them upon such Determination I intend not to say much upon these Questions supposing they may fall in others Way And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion so much hath been written upon these Points that might excuse us from saying more till what hath been published be fairly answered Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 1. You say and declare they are appointed only for Order and Decency But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. whereupon it follows that you must hold them vainly appointed or that the contrary might as well have been appointed and so teach or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies whereby many are deprived of their Ministers and of some of God's Ordinances which may seem very harsh if they are only for Order and Decency and that in so low a Degree that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed without them Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause than their meer Wills 2. Do you well accord here with Mr. R. Hooker who says Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit we that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual You seemed Answer to several Treatises p. 268. unwilling that any should urge you with that Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship was not not in it self altogether so decent and fitâ— But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature that the contrary implieth no Indecency then you cannot say that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them Wherein you and Mr. Hooker appear to be of different Minds And kneeling at Communions with him l. 5. § 68. p. 366. is a Gesture of Piety which is something more than meer Decency 3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church You declare our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God by some notable and special Signification whereby he might be edified Will you say such things are only for Order and Decency which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God and for his Edification One would think that such things should be good in themselves and not as you say of an indifferent Nature in themselves Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency whose contrary are as decent to be the same or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty whereby he may be edified then is it not made medium excitans which you say Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 354. our Church utterly denies Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies which you can by no means allow pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation to say they are only Matters of Order and Decency and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept Let all things be done decently and in Order tho they are things of a quite different Nature Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere but it would be no Transgression of that Command though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed or used in the Worship of God nor any others like them Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies Here 1. You say pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual Effects it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship And then the Question is whether these are no spiritual Effects if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for Men ' s Edification And as Dr. Field says they are adhibited to exercise great Fervour and Devotion And Hooker Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence Devotion and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite If you makâ— them unprofitable idle Indifferents are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment and if others make them profitable edifying Ceremonies have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such 2. If Church-Governours have Power that is lawful Power or Authority from Christ to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission or prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say Rational Account p. 103. Is it in that Place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded And a little before it what hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Surely you cannot think the Church hath any such Power In all kind of
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
ours 'T is impossible for you to assign any Reason for the Cross in Baptism c. à natura rei now but what would have been as pleadable even in the Apostles times and at all times since Then is it not most probable that Christ would have made an universal Law for them that should equally respect all Churches had it been his Mind to have such things in his Church Indeed we find Christ hath instituted what religious Rites and Ceremonies he would have observed in the Sacraments of the New Testament And where he hath determined the matter himself what have Men to do more than to submit to his Determination What can Men do that come after the King None are like to do his work better or know his Mind better than himself 6. If the exerting such a Power be found contrary to many express Commands in the Word how can we imagine such a Power conveyed to Church-Governours in any general Command there The Scripture is no where contrary to it self Consult Rom. 14. 1 2 3 4 5 13 14 15 v. 17 to the end of the Chapter And Chap. 15. 1 2. Are there such plain Commands in Scripture for mutual Forbearance and against judging and despising one another for such things as God hath not commanded and against offending the weak or casting a stumbling-Block in others way and for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church and can we think it probable or a thing credible that Christ would have all such Commands set aside meerly for the sake of things called indifferent Ceremonies Or that the Commands or Determinations of Church-Governours about such Matters should be of Force against the standing Rules and Laws of Christ who is King of his Church Matters of Order and Decency are things of another Nature necessary in genere as I have said before and yet Men cannot oblige us to this or that particular Order when it is repugnant to that whereunto it should be subservient Then much less is it the Will of Christ that meer indifferent things if no worse should take place of great and necessary Duties Such indifferent things must either be made necessary or else you must say it cannot be avoided That the Churches Peace may be broken sound Ministers and Christians that scruple the lawfulness of them may be ejected and cast out of Communion or their Consciences may be ensâ—â—red unnecessarily And yet one that ever read his Bible might know so much that the Governours of the Church have other work to do And as the second Book of Homilies says p. 3. Better it were that the Arts of Painting Plaistering Carving Graving and Founding had never been found nor used than one of them whose Souls in the sight of God are so precious should by occasion of Image or Picture perish and be lost So indeed better it were that no such Ceremonies had ever been appointed by Men than one Soul should be ensnared by them â—r one Minister or Member of Christ suffer 7. I query If Christ had not appointed the Sacraments of the New-Testament whether it had been in the power of Church-Governours to have appointed washing with Water in token and to put us in mind of our being washed and cleansed by the Blood of Christ and by the sanctifying influence and operation of his Spirit and so likewise to have appointed the eating and drinking of Bread and Wine as signifying that our Souls are to feed upon Christ whose Body was broken and whose Blood was shed for us Had not these been of the same Nature and as lawful as the significant Ceremonies which the Church hath taken on her to appoint Then let the People understand the Power of the Church that if Christ had never instituted Baptism and the Lord's Supper she could yet have in part supplied that want with those significant Ceremonies that would have been something like them 8. If Church-Governours have power to appoint such a Ceremony as the Cross in Baptism for Instance then they have power to add to the thing which God hath commanded and to make new parts of Worship But Deut. 4. 2. 12. 32. forbids that You grant p. 337. That for Men to make new parts of Divine Worship is unlawful For that is to suppose the Scripture an imperfect Rule of Worship and that Superstition is no Fault c. The Cross in Baptism is an Addition Tho you seem to understand the prohibition of adding to the Word of things directly repugnant yet that is not so properly an Addition as an Abolition As one says Prohibetur hîc additio non tantùm contrarii quae non tam additio est quà m abolitio sed etiam diversi v. M. Poli. Synops. Crit. in Deut. 4. 2. Methinks we may know what it is to add if we understand what it is to diminish then as they might not diminish or take away from God's Worship one significant Ceremony which the Lord had instituted by a Parity of Reason it would seem to follow that they might not introduce or add one significant Ceremony to the Worship God had instituted The Cross in Baptism is made a new part of Worship For that which is used in God's Worship in such a manner and to such an end that there needeth nothing but Divine Institution or God's appointing it to be used in that manner and to that end to make it a part of the true Worship of God that is made a part of God's Worship tho falsly for want of Divine Institution Had Christ appointed the Cross in Baptism as the Church hath appointed it to be used in token that we should not be ashamed c. had Christ appointed it by that Badg to dedicate us to the Service of him that died upon the Cross no doubt it had thus become a part of God's true Worship Here you speak short p. 348. The Canon says It is an honourable Badg whereby the Infant is dedicated to the Service of c. And what is that but a Sign from Men to God to testify their Subjection Which by your own Confession there is an Act of Worship and yet you will have it no such thing P. 355. you say If Christ had instituted it with such Promises then no doubt c. And I say If Christ had instituted it only in token that we ought not to be ashamed to confess him which is less than that hereafter we shall not be ashamed had he appointed it only to signify our Duty it would yet no doubt have been made a part of Worship And I hope upon second thoughts you will say the same Some other Passages relating to this Matter I would have glanced at but it is time to hasten to an end of this Conclusion I have been so long upon Yet methinks your slighty Exposition of the second Câ—mmandment p. 141. calls for one glance here Can you find no more in the Affirmative part of it than a Command to worship God without
from the Church of Rome upon account of that highest Censure of Excommunication with an Anathema and her pronouncing us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to her Communion as you here suppose why then do you allow a Protestant to joyn in some parts of Worship in the Roman Church as in hearing Sermons c. as is plain you do pag. 108. 2. I shall not oppose you in this that the general Excommunication ipso facto in the Canons lays no Obligation till it be duly executed As you say pag. 368 369. General Excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular Persons until the Evidence be notorious c. And the Question is whether any Person knowing himself to be under such Qualifications which incur a Sentence of Excommunication be bound to execute this Sentence upon himself Yet another Question may come in here viz. supposing such a Sentence unjust though that alone would not justify Separation whether yet it may not something extenuate it You are not for extenuating at all I can bear you witness 3. And may I not say that this is answering but by Halves It never reacheth the Case of so many Ministers who have been wholly cast out of their publick Ministry It reacheth not the Case of many private Christians who have been formally and actually excommunicated for such Causes as can never be proved by Scripture to deserve such a Censure and Sentence You know that Canon of the Council held at Agatha Can. 2. Carranza fol. 159. that if Bishops excommunicated any unjustly they were to be admonished by other neighbouring Bishops And might not the Admonishers have received such into their Communion whom the other had unjustly cast out As the Council at Wormes Carrenza fol. 388. Can. 2. cut short there as I suppose Can. 14th is cited in Mr. B's Church History p. 275. § 56. saying That if Bishops shall excommunicate any wrongfully or for light Cause and not restore them the Neighbour-Bishops shall take such to their Communion till the next Synod And to my weak understanding you say nothing here to what you have Iren. p. 119 120. where you fairly clear Non-conformists but lay the Imputation of Schism upon those who require such Conditions of Communion as they cannot conform unto for Conscience-sake The very requiring of such Conditions you would have there to be no less than an ejecting Men out of Communion And therefore I should wonder if by being wholly cast out of Communion you then meant only being excommunicated with an Anathema As I doubt not but Separation is as necessary where one cannot have Communion with-out joyning in unlawful or suspected Practices as where one is formally excommunicated yea and if an Anathema were annext to the Sentence too You add 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal Reason in these Cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about Matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Here 1. Be pleased to note that as much as you seem taken with and hug this Conceit of yours as you have it once and again here and likewise in your Conferences p. 171. as if you thought it would do you Knights Service yet it remains wholly unproved that the things imposed are only Matters of Decency and Order Still I conceive that if Man only had apâ—ointed such a use of Bread and Wine to signify and put us in remembrance of Christ's Body broken and his Blood shed for us it had been something more than a meer matter of Decency and Order or something worse And whether the same may not be said of the Sign of the Cross I am in doubt for they seem to be parallel And so it neither is nor ever can be proved that such Imposition of such things in the Iudgment both of the Primitive and of all Reformed Churches is allowable by God's Law and that Men are bound to submit to them whether they are satisfied about them or not 2. When you say The Author of Irenicum could not possibly mean that there was an equal Reason in these Cases I would fain know what those Words mean Irenic p. 119. cited Rector of Sutton p. 21. Let Men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same Arguments 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 things so required be after serious and sober Enquiry judged unwarrantable by a Man 's own Conscience Did you not here suppose some Equality in these Cases And which way did you wind and turn your self to get off from those Arguments 3. And let me say this further How could you then possibly mean that Men should be bound in Conscience to submit to significant Ceremonies as meer Matters of Order and Decency when you so plainly distinguished them Iren. pag. 67. And say of such Ceremonies that their Lawfulness may with better ground be scrupled p. 68. cited Rect. of Sutton p. 16. Could you then possibly mean that such Ceremonies and Matter of Order and Decency were all one certainly you could not any further than you might possibly contradict your self Preface p. 76. And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Paul's But if this be all you have to say they are not yet well agreed And whether there be not the like Disagreement betwixt your Rational Account and this your Impartial Account where I have compared them let the Indifferent and Impartial Reader judg Thus I have gone thorow so much of your Preface as I am concerned in As you take little notice of me in your Book I have little more to say I would not take others Work out of their hands who are by so great odds fitter for it The first place where I find Rector of Sutton cited is p. 95. There you take notice how far I say we agree with you but you over-look what follows upon it that it seems very hard that notwithstanding you break with us for things you count but Trifles yet would be Sins to us Will you grant that such as agree with you in all things necessary may not should not be debarred Communion by imposing things unnecessary Or will you assert the contrary and prove it Again pag. 98. You cite Rector of Sutton p. 35. All the Parish-Ministers aâ—e not near sufficient for so populous a City And can you say they are sufficient Is there no need of more Why then do you say This is but a Colour and Pretence The case
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
I cannot see what can hinder a mutual good Agreement Pag. 410. And seeing the good of the â—tare and Church depends absolutely upon the Union of the People in the Point of Religion one cannot there press an universal Union too much But it ought to be procured by good means An Vnion in Religion may be without Vniformity in Ceremonies You will not own it that you place Religion in these that they are any parts of Religion But the pressing of such unnecessary doubtful things upon Men about which many are and ever will be dissatisfied seems no good nor probable means to procure an Vniversal Vnion That Prudence and Charity which this Professor afterwards commends as necessary in this Work would in my simple Judgment direct to other Means and Methods Notes upon the Second Letter from Monsieur de L' Angle ADD P. 420. I have not met with such Writings said to be lately published to make Men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Or if I have seen any such they are quite out of my Mind As to the former of these do but allow them to distinguish as you do in your Rational Account and they will say They have communion with the Church of England so far as it is a Church and very many of them have ordinary Communion in the self-same Worship so far as it is God's Worship And what is redundant it is not necessary that they should have Communion in It is one thing to say Communion with the Church of England is simply unlawful unlawful in it self and so unto all Men and another to say that Communion in the Liturgies or Ceremonies is unlawful to them who cannot yet be satisfied that they are lawful But we are further supposed to believe that Communion with the Church of England is intolerable in what follows that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Here let every one so far as they are called to it speak for themselves For my part I have never made it any of my Work God and Men are Witnesses to warn others to take heed how they had Communion with the Church of England I have never told any living Soul that I should sin if I did not forbid their joyning with Parochial Congregations Rather it should be my Prayer I am sure it is my Hearts desire that sober Conformists and Non-conformists might once come to joyn each with other notwithstanding their lesser Differences But it seems it is not permitted to you to have Communion with such at Dr. O. and Mr. B. tho you may have Communion with others from whom you differ in greater Matters both as to your Judgments and Practices too while they do but conform then is there not some strange secret Virtue or Inchantment in this Chain of Conformity It can congregate the heterogeneous while it separates those who are more homogeneous But that this is not the Doctrine of the Non-conformists that they cannot permit private Persons to have Communion with you without sinning I am very apt to conclude because M. Le Moyne went to several of their private Assemblies while he was at London and could never hear any such thing from any of them Otherwise sure he that could remember the citing of Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times in one Sermon and tell us of it five years after tho I doubt his being so â—â—sy in casting up such Accounts might be the cause he waâ— not at all edified by the Sermon would not have failed to take notice of such a thing as that being more pertinent and material And for the same Reason with others I cannot believe what follows hâ—â—e p. 423. That The Bugbâ—ar Words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist are continually beaten into the Peoples Ears If so M. Le Moyne had been as likely as any Person to have catched at them and then had we heard of them again But further some of us have the very same to say that this Learned Person says P. 420 421. That In frequenting your Assemblies and preaching too in â—ongregations that are under the Jurisdiction of the Church of England when we could enjoy the Priviledg which indeed â—â—th been very rarely we have thus also shewn that we do not believe her 〈◊〉 to be unlawful Add P. 422. Schism is the most formidâ—ble â—vil thaâ— can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this 〈◊〉 â—Charity obliges all good Men to bear with then Brethâ—◠〈…〉 much less â—olerable than those of which the dispute is 〈…〉 the Eyes of those that have the most aversion fro◠〈◊〉 I thought it would appear that these â—minent learned Men did not rightly and fully understand our case So the former speaks as if we did excommunicate the Church of England without Mercy Whâ—â— alas we are rather under her Excommunication And this learneâ— Person speaks as if we had not so much Christian Charity as to bear with our Brethren in the use of a few Ceremonies but that is not the thing in Question Many of us at least could and do bear with youâ— Conformity and joyn with you notwithstanding But will it not follow from his own Words That Christian Charity obliges you to bear with ouâ— Non-conformity yet you will not bear with us I hope you would be counted good Men. Now he says Christian Charity obliges all good Men to bear with their Prethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the disâ—â—â—â— is The Apostle gives Timothy a very solemn Charge then are not Bishops concerned in it if Timothy was a Bishop 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by Partiality And one of these things he was to observe we find v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine Yet how many that have been â—alled to the work of the Ministry how many of your Brethren that would gladly labour in the work they have been called unto and you have been doing them what dishonour you can loading them with the charge of Schism and unreasonable Separation while you can bear with things much less tolerablâ— in others Is this your Christian Charity Or doing nothing by Partiality Are there no Non-conformists that use to hear you when they have Opportunity I am apt to think there are And thus they bear with you as to matters in dispute farther than you are seen to bear with them But this must be noted It is one thing for us to bear with your Conformity and another thing by Word and Deed to declare our approbation of Conformity or to conform meerly because you do so and require us to do so tho we suspect it to be sinful As the Lord Faulkland I
chuse oft to speak to you in others Words because I suppose if I spake the same things in my own Words they would not be so much regarded Reply p. 214. If they have any never so slight Errors and which appears so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to and this you know is our case which M. de L' Angle seems to be ignorant of or else forgot himself and in these Lines I am upon went quite besides it if I communicate with them my Assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some Truths which yet after my real endeavours in enquiry appear Errors to me I doubt not but my refusâ—l is â—o way damnable Something more you have immediately before This is home and answers M. de L' Angle's charging us with committing a very great Sin And where he cites Calvin and Beza p. 422. We may well be confident that they could not have submitted to such Terms as are put upon us And if he himself had submitted unto all that is required of us when he was here in England had he submitted to Re-ordination and owned Bishops aâ—a distinct order from Presbyters of Apostolical Institution I very much question whether it might not have drawn the displeasure of his Brethren upon him if not their Censure at his return as he speaks p. 421. Add p. 423. When I see what he says of the First Authors of the Separation I cannot but wish he had known them He condemns some Writings as unreasonable and passionate possibly he may mean our Answers to your Sermon but thâ—â— foâ— ought appearing in this Letter very probably he hath not seen them Yet â—fter all he comes to plead for Dissenters There is a very great number of good Men whose Faith is Pure and whose Piety is 〈◊〉 â—This â—estimony I hope is true and who remain separate from you only because their Simplicity is surprized c. And whether he should not have had the like Charity for very many Ministers as he hath for very many of their Hearers may be a question I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom 〈…〉 said they were of the Body for all that So why may not they who are of the same Faith and have the same Worship for substance be acknowledged as Brethren and still owned as in Communion with the Body tho they have not the same Ceremonies which are meer Shadows But he speaks more fully to the purpose p. 424. And I am sure I wish he could make us sure here That if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the abstaining from some Expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the Colour of some Habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great Pleasure From hence as from that earnest Expression he hath in the Page foregoing In the name of God then do all that possibly you can Onâ— would easily infer that he was little acquainted with the Case he understood not where we have stuck what hath thus long hindred our full Communion with the Church of England Otherwise for ought I can perceive here we might have had him pleading for us that such matters of difference might be quite removed or at least that they might not be urged and imposed And by what immediately followeth there p. 424. it appears he is a great Stranger to the Savoy-Conference never truly understood how Matters were carried or who have been the Obstructors of Union Had the Non-conformists then or at any time since refused to hearken and submit to fair and just Proposals which would not have pinched at all on that part which should be kept tender in every one Then had they been extreamly to blame and had stood very much in their own Light But God allows us not to break our Peace with him and our own Consciences for Peace with Men neither can true Piety Zeal and Charity three Cardinal Vertues which he commendeth in our Bishops and prayeth they may be increased more and more require so much of us which is not in our Power to grant and yield unto But seeing as he says afterwards he should be past all comfort if he should not see some new Attempt at least made for the success of a work so holy and of such Consequence in a time that seems so proper for it and Thousands more may say the like who truly prefer Ierusalem's Welfare before their chiefest Ioy I cannot but pray that those who are chiefly concerned may have all the Qualities of the Head and the Heart which are necessary to make them able and willing to contribute to this good Work Upon the Third Letter from Monsieur Claude ADD P. 439. Tho he says the distinction betwixt the Bishop and Priest is very Antient yet had he been required to own this Distinction as grounded on the Word of God and to assert the Right of Episcopacy as of Apostolical Institution I very much question whether this would not have gravelled him Add P. 440. I believe there are very few to be found amongst us that question the Ordination of all ordained by Bishops And many would be glad if it was permitted that some of you would sometimes help us in our Meetings Where he speaks of Christian Unity and Concord to my poor understanding Mr. Corbet speaks more soundly accurately and distinctly P. 441. He is expressly against Tyranny over the Soul and Mens forcing the Conscience by imposing a necessity to believe that which they believe and to practise that which they practise where we must suppose the things themselves are not necessary And according to what follows in this case The external Communion ceases of right and there is not any that is lawful to be had any more with such Was there not need of an Index Expurgatorius here This makes something for Dissenters and pinches some where else And what follows that We do not believe that a single difference of Government or Discipline nor even a difference of Ceremonies innocent in their own Nature is a sufficient occasion to break the sacred bond of Communion is little to your purpose I think a single difference of Ceremonies should not break Communion where there is an Vnion in the same Faith and in things necessary But there is more than a single difference of Ceremonies where no difference is allowed but the same Ceremonies are imposed on all tho one part cannot look on them as innocent Ceremonies P. 442. Speaking of the Protestant Churches in France he says We utterly disapprove and see with Grief certain Extreams whereinto some of the one side and the other do cast themselves The one looking upon Episcopacy as an order so absolutely necessary that without it there can be no Ecclesiastical Society c. Then according to them there may be true Churches true Ministers without Bishops And as they are ready to
receive Ministers Episcopally ordained p. 440. so they should think it an Extream if we will not own such for Ministers as have been ordained by a Presbytery and that when there were not Bishops at hand to ordain If we will force such to be re-ordained or will not admit of them as Ministers this is an Extream with them Add P. 443. Let not Men domineer over their â—â—â—th and Consciences a thing destructive to Religion and I hope they would not be for rejecting the Bridle of Discipline nor for shaking off the whole yoke of Government nor for depriving themselves of the Succours which might be drawn out of a general Vnion for to strengthen them in the true Faith and in true Piety But they cannot apprehend that the things imposed will ever contribute any thing to either of thâ—se Pag. 444. He seems to suppose they are kept off only from an Apprehension of some unpleasant Incoâ—â—eniencies in the Episcopal Government whereas generally it is not the Government it self but some particular Matters impâ—sed which they cannot with a good Conscience submit unto which causes the distance So add P. 447. Tho I have opportunity of conversing with very few yet I cannot think there is a Man of all those that believe the Presbyterian Government is more agrable to Scriptuâ—e-Rule than our Prelatical that stands off meerly because he cannot have what in his Judgment he prefers as the better Government So what he says towards the end of the same pagâ— The Question here is not about the esse â—r the bene esse but only about the meâ—â—us esse thaâ— they dispute with you fully proves â— as I said â—hâ—â— indeed they know not the true state of our Case as we see plainly he is quitâ— beside the Point we stick at Now I look back a little again Add P. 445. The Bond of Christian Charity doth not only joyn us with some of our Brethren but with all our Brethren to receive from them and to give them Edification by living together in the same Communion Then let the World judg by this Rule who have most Christian Charity You 〈◊〉 the Non-conâ—ormisis Many of these hear and joyn with you so 〈…〉 they can and have opportunity whereas few or none of you will hear â— joyn with them And yet you are sometimes pleased to 〈…〉 Bâ—thren 〈…〉 follows it still appears hâ— understood not the Case or was beside 〈◊〉 â—â—w many that â—ppâ—â—â—â— not of the Government yet could submit to it did 〈…〉 require any thing but what they are satisfied is agreeable to the Worâ— And both parts agree that God's Word ought to be the Rule of our 〈◊〉 What â—â—se is there considerable I have more fully debared with you beâ—ore Add Pag. 446 To imagine that we cannot with a good Conscience be present at Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve of all things in them it is certainly not to know neither the use of Charity nor the Laws of Christian Society But what if a Church requires Ministers and Christians to declare their Approbation of Things they cannot approve of and to practise that in the Worship of God which in their Judgment ought nâ—t to be practised Is not this a different Case Would not this be contrary to true Faith and Piety And are not such so far cut off from the Communion of that Church by what he says in the beginning of that Page That is not allowable for such to do which yet they look upon as tolerable in others who are otherwise perswaded in their Minds abut the same Add P. 447. I cannot believe that there is any one among them that looks upon your Episcopacy or your Discipline or certain Ceremonies which you observe as Blots and capital Errors which hinder a Man from obtaining Salvation Something was spoken to this in the Answer to the first Letter So I say still they are not so well satisfied about these as to give a true Assent unto them and then to declare their Assent would be foul Dissimulation They know not how easily others get to Heaven by their Conformity But if they conformed against their Consciences they know not how they should ever come there without Repentance Then pag. 448. he comes to put in a good Word for us I hope you will not be wanting in the Duties of Charity and the Spirit of Peace and that when the Dispute shall be only of some Temperaments as if the Dispute had not been of these all this while Or of some Ceremonies that are a Stumbling-block and yet innocent things and which in themselves are nothing in comparison of an intire Re-union of your Church under your holy Ministry you will make it seen that you love the Spouse of your Master more than your selves and that it is not so much from your Greatness and your Ecclesiastical Dignity that you desire to receive your Glory and your Joy as from your pastoral Vertues and the ardent care 〈◊〉 take of your Flocks Now I had thought that all the Dispute or Difference betwixt you and the Non-conformists had been only about some Ceremonies and the like things I mean such as in themselves are nothing in comparison of an intire and happy Vnion Were but such things removed or no such things imposed I should hope you would be soon united and agreed He that understands not that it is the strict and rigorous imposing of such things which the Imposers might lawfully take off and we cannot lawfully submit to which keeps up the Difference amongst us I say he that understands not this and does not consider and speak to it he cannot be supposed rightly to consider our Case And yet how obvious is it that this is quite over-looked here not once seriously debated in any of these three Letters And therefore as I before appealed to you as Iudg whether we were not misrepresented here and you have judged the matter already so I shall expect that in the next Impression of this your Impartial Account you will take care these Letters may be left out You cannot but know that they were no competent Iudges betwixt us who had only heard one Part and seem wholly ignorant what the other Part hath to plead for themselves Here I remember what you say Preface pag. 35. of one you speak of there But I must do the Author that Right to declare that before his Death he was very sensible of the Injury he had done to some worthy Divines and begged God and them pardon for it So would I have you to do these worthy eminent learned Divines and us also that write to smother their Letters as soon as you can if you do no more Otherwise though I may not live or have liberty to call you partial the World may account you so And yet observing every one of them to have some touch for Moderation Charity some Temperament and the like if a Council of such as these were called and
no such Matters but in Righteousness and Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost 14. Because Christ is pleased in this without the other and God accepteth such 15. Because such are approved of Men i. e. This Righteousness Peace and holy Joy without Agreement in such Ceremonies and By-matters beareth its own Testimony for Approbation to the Judgment of all impartial Men Humanity and Christianity teach us to love and honour such 16. From our common Obligation to live in Peace with all 17. From our Obligation to do all to the edifying of one another 18. Because God's Work else is destroyed by us 19. Because our own lawful Acts are turned into Sin when they hurt another and from the Obligation that lieth on us to deny our own Liberty in Meat c. to avoid the hurting of another that is weak 20. From the Damnation of such as are driven or drawn to act doubtingly 21. From the special Duty and Mercy of the Strong that should bear the Infirmities of the Weak 22. From the Example of Christ himself that pleased not himself and our great Obligation to imitate Christ. 23. From God's Patience to us 24. Because indeed this is the true way to Love and Vnity that with one Mind and one Mouth we may glorify God while we lay not our Concord on impossible Terms 25. Because Christ receiveth us and it is to God's Glory c. Whether do all these moral Arguments signify no more than this receive and tolerate such only till you make Laws against them ibid. p. 150 151 152. Query 2. Whether Men have any Authority to make Laws about God's Worship but what Christ hath given them Second Plea for Peace p. 28. § 36. And whether it be not against the Mind and Law of Christ declared Act. 15. 28. that unnecessary Laws and Burthens in Religion should be made for and laid upon the Churches ibid. p. 29. § 40. So whether that Determination and Decree of the holy Ghost by the Apostles be not obligatory to all Rulers and Churches upon Earth even to this day And whether all that think not themselves wiser should not confess that at least it is safe to follow it ibid. p. 169. § 74. If therefore the Pastors shall contrary to that Decree impose unnecessary things on the Church not only under the Obligation of Duty but as a necessary Condition of church-Church-Communion whether this be not a tyrannizing over God's Heritage and usurping a Power never given them ibid. p. 155. § 33. Q. 3. Whether what God hath left to human Prudence to determine concerning Churches and Church-affairs be not thus limited by his general Laws viz. That all things be done to Edification the Circumstances fitted to the end the Glory of God and the publick Good the promoting of Truth and Godliness that all be done in Love to the promoting of Love and Unity and that all be done in order and decently and as may avoid Offence or Scandal to all both those without and those within First Plea for Peace p. 19. Then query 1. Whether they do well that unnecessarily bring Subjects into such a Strait by needless Laws for Additions in Religion that the Consciences of Men fearing God must unavoidably be perplexed between a Fear of Treason and Disobedience against Christ and of Disobedience to their Prince or Pastors Second Plea c. p. 28. § 38. 2. Whether it be not more inexcusable to rack and divide the Church by unnecessary Additions in Religion ibid. § 39. 3. Whether it be not against the Will and Law of Christ to use things otherwise indifferent scandalously or temptingly to the ensnaring and endangering of Men's Souls and the Dishonour of Religion Rom. 14 15. 1 Cor. 8. And whether Men may make Laws about Religion enjoyning such an evil use of such things ibid. p. 29. § 41. 4. Whether to invent and command new publick-Worship-Ordinances either in God's Name or their own co-ordinate or of the same kind with God's own Worship-Ordinances which have no peculiar usefulness to one Age or People more than to another nor any new Reason for them but what was extant at the making of God's Laws whether this seemeth not to be an Accusation of Christ's Laws of Omission and Defectiveness and an Usurpation of his Legislative Power ibid. § 42. 5. Whether to forbid Baptism or to alter it or make a new Sacrament of Admission or a new consecrating or dedicating Symbol for the Solemnization of our Covenant with God and a new Symbol of the Christian Church or visible Badge of Christianity seem not an Usurpation and Accusation of God's Law as insufficient ibid. p. 30. § 46. 6. Whether to forbid Preaching or Prayer or Praise ordaining Homogeneal Means of our own seem not an Usurpation and unlawful ibid. p. 31. § 47. 7. Whether to add more Doctrines or Articles of Faith which God hath not revealed in Nature or Scripture and to require Belief or Proâ—â—â—â—â— of Belief of the same 〈…〉 religious End seem not an Usurpation and unjust Accusation of God's Word as insufficient ibid. p. 29. § 43. 8. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Church-members either forbidding those that Christ requires us to receive or receiving such as Christ forbiddeth us to receive be not to contradict his Laws by Usurpation whether Magistrates or Pastors do it ibid. p. 30. § 45. 9. Whether to alter the Qualifications of Christ's Ministers or the nature of their Office and invent new co-ordinate Officers seemeth not Usurpation ibid. p. 31. § 48. 10. Whether to overthrow or prohibit Christ's Church-Discipline or to set up another that is not meerly subordinate to it modally to promote it seem not an Usurpation ibid. § 51. 11. Whether to forbid Religious Assemblies or alter their Ends and principal Use be not to usurp and to contradict the Laws of Christ ibid. p. 29. § 44. Q. 4. Whether Rulers ought not to prefer Christ's Interest before their own and account that their own lieth in preferring His and should not value conscionable upright Men though Dissenters in tolerable Cases and not encourage their unconscionable Enemies Way of Concord 3d part p. 26. And whether the chief Work of Rulers be not to promote the keeping of God's Laws and the everlasting Good of Men and the temporal Good in order thereunto Second Plea for Peace p. 108. col 1. § 11. And whether Rulers may command any thing which will notably do more Harm than Good or make an unnecessary thing a Means or Occasion of excluding the necessary Worship of God or preaching of his Gospel Judgment of Non-conformists in second Plea c. p. 76. § 59. And whether is it more to common Good and the Interest of Honesty and Conscience that all the Persons in a Nation be imprisoned banished or killed that dare not swear say and practise all that is imposed on them than that unnecessary Impositions be altered or forborn Way of Concord 3d Part p. 111 112. Q. 5.
Though Magistrates may regulate us in the Circumstances of those Duties which the Law of Nature or Gospel doth command yet if on such Pretence they violate or contradict either the Law of Nature or the Gospel and dedstroy the Duty it self or its End whether we are bound in such Cases to obey them Or whether it be not enough that we patiently suffer First Plea for P. p. 104. Q. 6. Whether the Kings of Israel had Power to forbid the Priests exercising their Office according to God's Law Or whether they could change or abrogate their Office ibid. p. 20. Of Solomon's puting out Abiathar see p. 21. Whether might they then have put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office Or might they have put any one in his Place that had not Right from God or that was unqualified Or might they have forbidden the Priests the Work appointed them by God ibid. p. 22. Q. 7. Whether such as Christ's Laws empower to ordain others to the Work of the Ministry have Power from Christ to hinder the Ordination of such as Christ's Laws admit into the Ministry ibid. p. 25. Q. 8. Whether the Magistrate besides the Power of the Temples and Tithes and publick Maintenance and Liberty also hath the Power of Ordination or Degradation that no Man may be a true Minister without or contrary to his Consent Sacrileg Desert p. 11. Whether were not many of the Non-conformist's true Pastors of their several Flocks before they were silenced and cast out ibid. And whether did the ejecting them from the Temples and Tithes degrade them or make them no Pastors to their Flocks Though Prudence may require Minister and People to consent to a Dissolution of such a Relation when they cannot hold it without greater hurt than benefit ibid. Q. 9. Though Princes or Patrons may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just Cause for their Interposition 2. And may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intolerable Men. 3. And when a Peoples Ignorance Wilfulness Faction or Division makes them refuse all that are truely fit for them may urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples Duty to consent Yet whether Christ and his Apostles have not settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of consenting in the People First Plea for P. p. 33. And whether any Man can be the Pastor of a Church de jure or truly de facto against the Church or Peoples Will or without their Consent ibid. p. 25. As the Saying of Cyprian is well known that the People have the greatest Power both to chuse a worthy Priest and to refuse or forsake the unworthy ibid. p. 77 And when in England it belongeth 1. To the Patron to present 2. To the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. To the People Iure Divino to be free Consenters 4. And to the Magistrate to protect and judg who shall be protected or tolerated under him if these four Parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several Men and cannot agree in one Whether the culpable Dissenters will not be the Causes of Schism ibid. p. 50. Q. 10. Whether the Churches and Councils were in the right or no which for 700 yea 1000 Years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent And if Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and Conformists and make themselves our Pastors against our Wills what would the Bishops think of such Would they hold it unlawful to separate from such agreeing with them in Doctrine and Worship Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 27. Q. 11. If a lawful Magistrate or Prince put in place of Pastors Persons of untried and suspected parts of Fidelity Whether will his Imposition make such the true Pastors of that Church before and without the Peoples Consent Fiâ—st Plea for P. p. 55. If so then whether might not one Roman Emperour have undone all the Churches and Souls in the Empire in a great Degree by imposing on them insufficient heretical or malignant Pastors ibid. p. 56. If People were as much under Princes for chusing Guides for their Souls as a Daughter in her Fathers House is under her Father for the choice of an Husband which yet we have not seen proved yet as he can be no Husband to her without her Consent though She culpably deny Consent Query Whether it be not so here that they can be no Pastors to People till they consent Way of Concord p. 209. § 18. But whether hath God authorized the Magistrate to chuse what Persons every Man in his Dominions shall entrust his Soul to as the Pastor whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey Ans. to Dr. Still Serm p. 14. Whether shall the People have any Judgment of discerning or not If yea must not the Bounds of it be shewed without denying the thing as if that would bring in all Confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown must not Subjects judg which is the true King and defend his Right Will any say if the People be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King When they are but Discerners of that which is before their Duty and have no Right to err or alter the Law and Right can any dreadful Consâ—â—uence be proved to follow on it Or if it be otherwise must they not be ruled as Brutes and so must not â—udg so much as whom they are to obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the People be made Judges First Plea for P. p. 70 71. Q. 12. Whether the Ministerial Office be taken up upon Tryal or for a time or during Life with a Capacity to perform the work If the latter be granted then whether it be any less than 1. Horrid Sacriledg 2. Perfidious Covenant-breaking 3. Disobedience to God 4. Cruelty to Souls 5. And unthankfulness for great Mercies if any of us shall desert our undertaken Office yea tho a silencing Diocesan should forbid us the exercise of it unjustly Sacriledg Desert p. 25 30. Q. 13. If Rulers may silence the faithful Ministers of Christ who knoweth where to bound his Obedience to such Silencers If a 1000 or 2000 faithful Ministers must cease Preaching when so forbidden why not 3000 why not 4000 If half a Kingdom can you satisfy the Consciences of the other half that they must not do so too and so all Christian Kingdoms conform to Muscovy when the Prince commandeth it And if a 1000 or 2000 or 3000 Parishes must chuse the apparent hazard of their Souls and refuse such helps as Experience certifieth us they greatly need in Obedience to Man why must not the rest of the Parishes do so
also May I give away the needful helps to my Salvation because others have them should their Salvation satisfy me instead of mine own First Plea for Peace p. 89 90. Whether should Men persuade the poor to famish rather than against Law to beg because if thousands of them dye of Famine yet other People are supplied ib. p. 102. Q. 14. Whether the antient Christian Pastors preached not against the Will of Princes for 300 years and after that against the Will of Christian Princes as Constantius Valens Theodosius junior Valentinian c. And whether not only Apostles said that God was to be obeyed rather than Men but such as Timothy who was ordained by Man were not strictly charged before God and the Lord Jesus Christ who will judg the living and dead at his appearing and Kingdom to preach the Gospel and be instant in season c. ib. p. 226 227. Q. 15. Whether any Man hath Authority to forbid a Faithful Minister of Christ who forfeiteth not his Office-Power to perform the Office to which he is ordained And whether such remain not under a Divine Obligation which Man's Law cannot dissolve Whether it be not right as Bishop Bilson saith If Princes forbid us we must go on with our work What if an Interdict silence all the Ministers in a Kingdom Must all obey What if it silence more than can be spared without the Churches wrong And whose Laws be they that would so bind Is it Infidel Princes or only Christians Is it Papists c. or only the Orthodox Must God ask leave of Rulers to be worshipped as God Hath God made Men Judges whether the Gospel shall be preached or not or whether People shall be Saved or left to perish in their Ignorance and Sin And how cometh the Orthodox to be authorized to do Mischief or to forbid the needful preaching of the Gospel any more than an Heretick or a Christian more than an Heathen Is he not bound to do more good than they rather than authorized to do more hurt Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 84 85. or 78 79. See also p. 21. Q. 16. Where such Sins are made the condition of Ministration by Men in Power as that all the whole Ministry of a Kingdom are bound in Conscience to deny Consent and Conformity thereto Whether is it not the duty of all the Ministry in primo instanti to forbear their Ministerial Office or of none the Reason being the same to all Now if all these must forbear or lay down their Office because forbidden by Men to exercise it then is it not in the Power of a Prince to cast out Christianity when he pleaseth and to deny God all publick Worship And must we not then ask leave of Rulers that Christ may be Christ and Souls may be saved as if the Keys of Heaven and Hell were theirs First Plea for Peace p. 114 115. But whether must not all agree that to silence all the Ministers of the Nation is a thing that God hath not given any Man authority to do because of the necessity of their Ministry and consequently to silence any necessary Ministry at all ib. p. 223. And if all must not lay down their Ministry why must a 1000 or 2000 do it rather than all the rest If it be said the rest are a competent supply to the Churches how shall we be sure that other Mens sinning will absolve the Innocent from their Duty As if I were bound to be a Minister only till other Men will Sin And where can the Wit of Man ever set Bounds as to this Matter Will it not be granted that if the most in France conform to Popery this will not disoblige all others from the exercise of their Ministry And who then can say what those Untruths and Sins are which a weak and erring Ministry may be guilty of which shall serve to disoblige the rest And were not this an easy way to introduce any Error by forbidding any but the Defenders of it to Preach Ib. p. 115 116. Q. 17. Whether God hath authorized the Magistrate to chuse and command in what Words only every Pastor shall publickly pray to God and what Books and Words of Men he shall profess Assent and Consent to and what dedicating Symbols of Christianity he shall use as engaging in the Christian Covenant and to command Ceremonies and Modes for Dissent wherein he shall deny Baptism and Church-Communion to all Dissenters tho the things be taken to be indifferent by the Magistrate and great Sins by the Dissenters Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 14. Q. 18. Whether Pastors usurp not Power over one another when they command all about them to speak to Men from God or to God from Men in no other Words but what they the Usurpers shall write them down making Ministers but Cryers to read their Prescripts and Proclamations Second Plea c. p. 142. Q. 19. Whether any but Volunteers should be taken for true Christians or admitted to Holy Communion to receive the Seals of Pardon and Life Way of Concord third Part p. 27. § 7. And whether Pastors of the Churches should be constrained to administer Sacraments to any against their Consciences Whether it be not their Office to be Judges who is to be baptized and to communicate Ib. p. 123. Q. 20. If any be urged to take a Re-ordination against their Judgments whether Morals must not be preferred before Rituals and Rituals never set against them And whether they should not be of this Mind that deny the Scriptures to have unchangeably fixed all Rituals and yet confess that Morals are fixedly determined Ib. p. 214 215. It is not contrary to the temper of the Gospel which ever subjecteth Ceremonies Rites and External Orders to Morals and to Man's Good and the great Ends Ib. third Part p. 81. Q. 21. When the most learned sober judicious Conformists differ not at all from us about the Matter it self to which we deny Conformity but confess it to be unlawful as to the hardest Points of the imposed Subscriptions Oaths Declarations and Covenants and only take the Words in such a Sence in which we our selves could take them were we persuaded that it was indeed the true meaning of them Query hereupon How it comes to pass that they who are as much as we against that Sence which we disown and agree with us in the Matter should deserve Liberty Honour and Preferment for otherwise interpreting the Words of the Law which the Lawgivers themselves will not interpret when our Supposition that the Law-makers mean properly as they speak is taken to deserve Scorn Silencing c. from them that will not expound their Words to us Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea c. p. 116 117. And seeing as those worthy Conformists must grant that if the Words of the Laws be properly to be understood and not with their Limitations then the Conformists are in the wrong and the Non-conformists in the right
untrue or evil or which all Men may not consent to therefore all others must think so too and say as they Who can think that in many thousand uncertain Words all Men can and must be of the same Mind and approve them all alike Or that honest Men can lye and say that they assent to what they do not ibid. p. 88. Q. 31. If Men in all these must be brought to Uniformity and Practising in the same Mode whether must it not be either by Argument and Perswasion or by Force And whether it be not certain that the first will never do it Besides a multitude of Reasons whether doth not many hundred Years experience prove that all Christians will never be in all things of a mind about lawful and unlawful Duty and Sin And whether it be not as certain that Force will never do it Will a sound Believer sell his Soul to save his Flesh or hazard Heaven by wilful Sin to save his Interest on Earth ibid. p. 89 90. Q. 32. Whether in regard of the diversity of mental Capacities and Apprehensions the best will ever agree in any but few plain and certain things Way of Concord 3d Part p. 109. And Q. 33. Whether universal Concord may not take in most of the differing Parties though not as such by receiving any of their Errors yet as Christians who agree in the common Essentials of Faith and Piety And whether we should not hold essential Unity with all that hold the Essentials of Christianity though with those that hold Integrals more purely we are to have more full and nearer Concord than the rest that have more Errors ib. p. 72. Whether Christians ought not to bear with one another without having their Affections alienated from and much more without persecuting one another in greater Matters than most of the dissenting Parties disagree in Whether Christians of as different Principles may not yea and ought not yet to love each other and live in Peace Sacril Desert p. 7 8. 9. Whether the Novatians for many Ages were not tolerated by the wisest and godliest Emperours and Bishops ibid. p. 14. Q. 34. Whether the Terms of Church-Communion must not be such as take in all that Christ taketh in and would have us take in i. e. All that are fit for church-Church-Communion And whether they should not be such Terms as all true Christians fit for such church-Church-Communion if imposed would have united in in all Ages and Places of the Church since the days of Christ till now And whether those Terms that would have divided the Church are fit means to unite it Or can we think that the Church should now unite upon such Terms as it never united before Second Plea for P. p. 152 153. Q. 35. Whether Christ himself hath not instituted the Baptismal Covenant Mat. 28. 19. to be the Title of visible Members of the Church and the Symbol by which they shall be notified and hath not commanded all the baptized as Christians to love each other as themselves and though weak in Faith to receive one another as Christ receiveth us but not to doubtful Disputations and so far as they have attained to walk by the same Rule of Love and Peace and not to despise or judg each other for tolerable Differences And whether any mortal Man hath Power to abrogate these Terms of Church-union and Concord which Christ hath made First Plea for P. p. 34. Q. 36. Whether Christ who made the Baptismal Covenant the Test and standing Terms of Entrance did set up Pastors over his Churches to make new and stricter Terms and Laws or to preserve Concord on the Terms that he had founded it and to see that Men lived in Unity and Piety according to the Terms of the Covenant which they had entered Second Plea for P. p. 154. And when they have as Ministers not as Lords received Men on Christ's Terms whether they may excommunicate and turn them out again for want of more or only for violating these ibid. p. 155. Q. 37. Whether it be not a strange Contrariety of some to themselves who judg that all Infants of Heathens Jews Turks or wicked Men are without Exception to be taken into the Church if any ignorant Christian will but offer them and say over a few Words and the Adult also if they can but say over the Creed by rote and a few Words more that would fill the Church with Enemies of Christ and yet when Men are in deny them Communion unless they will strictly come up to many humane unnecessary Impositions as if far stricter Obedience to Men perhaps in Usurpations was necessary than to Jesus Christ Way of Concord p. 118. § 10. Q. 38. Whether the universal Church had not Unity long upon the Terms of Baptism and the Creed and Scriptures without any other Subscriptions Oaths or other Professions made necessary to Communion And whether it ever had Union upon such additional Terms of new Professions Subscriptions and Oaths as most Churches now impose and require Whether they departed not from Unity and Concord and so continue divided to this day when they departed from the antient Simplicity and the primitive Terms ibid p. 157. § 42. And whether those Pastors who will make Canons that alâ— English Protestants shall agree in Subscriptions Professions Oaths Forms and Ceremonies which they are not agreed in nor ever will be do not in effect say we will break them more in pieces and set them farther from each other than before ibid. p. 183. § 100. Whether the hereticating and cursing Men for doubtful Words or want of Skill in aptness of Expressions yea or for Errors which consist with having Faith in Christ be not so far from being a means of the Churches Good that it hath been the grand Engine of Satan to exercise Tyranny excite Hatred and Schism c. and therefore carefully to be avoided Way of Concord p. 195. § 34. whether anathâ—matizing Men for doubtful Actions or for such Faults as consist with true Christianity and continued Subjection to Jesus Christ be not a sinful Church-dividing Means ibid. p. 195 196. Q. 39. Whether Addition to Christ's Terms be not very perilous as well as Diminution as when Men will deny Church-entrance or Communion to any that Christ would have received because they come not up to certain Terms which they or such as they devise And though they think that Christ giveth them Power to do thus yet whether their Error will make them guiltless Or whether imputing their Error to Christ untruly be not an Aggravation of the Sin ibid. p. 119. § 1. Whether it is a small Fault to usurp a Power proper to Christ ibid. § 2. Whether it be not dangerous Pride to think themselves great enough wise enough and good enough to come after Christ and to amend his Work ibid. § 3. And whether this imply not an Accusation against him and his Institutions ibid. § 4. And whether the merciful Lord and
Saviour of the Church that came to take off heavy Burthens and intolerable Yokes will take it well to have Men come after him and as by his Authority to make his easy Yoke more strait and his light Burthen heavy and to cast or keep out thâ—se that he hath redeemed and doth receive and to deal cruelly with those that he hath so dearly bought and so tenderly loveth ibid. p. 120. § 6. When Christ says Mat. 18. 6. Whoso shall offend one of these little Ones which believe in me it were better for him that a Milstone were hanged about his Neck c. Whether Bishops may curse such from Christ and excommunicate them and whether it be safe for them to do so ibid. p. 144. And seeing that spiritual Priviledges excell temporal whether it be not an aggravated Tyranny to deprive Christ's Servants of Benefits so precious and so dearly bought ibid. p. 120. § 9. Q. 40. Whether Christ be not the Institutor of the Church and hath not himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the Bond of their Unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath not he given Laws to regulate all Men's Laws that determine of needful undetermined Accidents And whether any Man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God necessary to Church-Unity and Communion And whether the grand Schismaticks of the World are not the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing Terms and Conditions of Unity and Communion Answ. to Dr. Sill. Serm. p. 88 or 82. Q. 41. Whether it be not enough that we are united and agreed with those that differ from us in more than Circumstances and that we will hold Concord with all in Faith Love and Communion if they will admit us without our sinning upon the Terms set down by the Holy Ghost and the Apostles Acts 15. 28 And if no Men must be of the same Church or Kingdom that have any difference yea as great as can reasonably be supposed in the meer Non-conformists whether any two Men can be of the same Church or Kingdom except you will compose it of such as hold nothing unlawful and consequently nothing morally good which is no Church Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea for Peace p. 85 86. Q. 42. Whether the long and sad Experience of all the Christian Churches which have been divided by unnecessary human Impositions and the Voice of all wise Peace-makers in all times who have still called for Vnity in things necessary Liberty in things unnecessary and Charity in both do not leave those that yet will not be perswaded to these Terms as inexcusable Persons as almost any in the World worse than those Physicians that would use all those things as the only Remedies which have killed all that ever took them Second Plea for Peace p. 155. § 34. Q. 43. Whether they that confess that for the Communion of all the Churches there are no Terms like these now mentioned should be more cruel to their own at home turning them out of their Father's House for every Ceremonial Difference Whether a Pastor should not love his own Flock as well as the People of a Forreign Land Ib. p. 155 156. § 35. And whether it be not a Schismatical Opinion that tho Churches of many Kingdoms may charitably differ in Ceremonies and indifferent things yet none in the same Kingdom should be suffered so to differ Whether the Apostle Paul gave not the Pastors and People of the same Church of Rome those Precepts of forbearing and receiving Dissenters in things indifferent Way of Concord third Part p. 106. Q. 44. Whether Uniformity in Circumstantials and in External Polity be any more than a Carkass or Image of Unity without uniting Love which is its Soul Whether all Union in Evil or in unnecessary Circumstantials which is managed to the diminution of Christian Love are any more to the Church than as the Glory of adorned Cloathing or Monuments or Pictures to a Carkass Ib. p. 66. Q. 45. Whether Love and Unity which the most zealous for human Impositions cannot but commend would teach Men to tyrannize over Inferiors to contrive the treading down of others that they may rise and to keep them down to secure their own Domination to oppress the Poor Weak or Innocent to make Sâ—ares for other Mens Consciences or to lay Stumbling-blocks before them to occasion them to Sin or to drive them on to sin against Conscience and so to Hell to shew Mens Authority about things they call indifferent or in a thing of nought Way of Concord p. 36. Would not true â—ove end our greatest Differences if Men loved theâ— Neighbours without dissembling as themselves and did but as they would be done by Sâ—cond Plea for Peâ—â— p. 156. § 37. Yea if many of the Children of the Church were injudiciously scrupulous when fear of Sin and Hell was the Cause whether a tender Pastor would not abate them a Ceremony in such a case when his abating it hath no such danger lb. § â—6 Q. 46. Whether Unmerciful Pastors do not tempt the People to question whether they be sent of God Whether the People will not judg of Pastors as Solâ—mon of the true Mother of the Child that the Merciful and Loving is the true Pastor and the Hartful is the Usurper lb. p. 156 157. § 39. Q. 47. Whether they that can bear with such as understand not the Essentials of Christianity and with Drunkards Swearers Fornicators c. in their constant Congregations and Communion and yet will not bear with an honest godly Christian that differeth from their way of Worship in no greater matter than a Ceremony have not something more amiss within than a Ceremony Ib. p. 162. § 48. And whether the Souls of such as some call humorous peevish or wilful be not worth more than some of that they call their Liberty worth more than a needless Ceremony Iudgment of Non-conformists in second Plea p. 66. q. 5. Q. 48. Whether as every Hypocrite would be very Religious so far as he can subject the true common Religion to his own Interest and Lusts so every Enemy of Peace will not seem zealous for Peace so that his own Peace be made the Rule of the common Peace that all Men be brought to center in his Interests and take their Peace on his Terms from him Second Plea c. p. 149. Q. 49. Whether all the Arguments for Unity and Peace which are made use of against Toleration by Prelatists and all the mischiefs of division which they aggravate do not principally fall on themselves if it proves that they are the greatest causes of Division and hinderers of Church-Concord Ib. p. 180. § 88. Whether they do not condemn themselves who cry down Schism while they unavoidably cause it And whether overdoing Terms of Church-Union and Concord be not the certainest Engines of Schism Way of Concord p. 121. § 11.
Judgment and the Untruth of what they have believed of us ibid. p. 85. And whether we may not suppose that Satan is afraid of their Ministry who hath stirred up so much Opposition against it Sacril Desert p. 84. Q. 64. Whether Popery will come in ever the more for Non-conformist's Preaching Whether such will preach for or against it Or ever the â—ss if they renounce their Ministry ibid. p. 82. Whether they that cry out of the danger of Popery Infidelity Prophaness and Heresies and yet had rather let them all in then give us leave to exercise that Ministry to which we were consecrated in Poverty and Subjection and while they cry out of Divisions will not lay by the dividing Engines should rather accuse us or themselves if the Evils overwhelm us which they seem to fear ibid. p. 137 138. Q. 65. When any are unjustly cast out of their Parish-Churches whether all Ministers are thereupon obliged or allowed to desert or neglect them ib. p. 21. Q. 66. If a Patient would not take a Medicine from one Mans hand whether would not the Physician consent that another should give it him Whether would the Father let the Infant famish if it would take Food from none but its Mother And whether would there be need of the best Conformists as Ministers if the People had no Faults or Weaknesses ibid. p. 125 126. What if they culpably would hear no other Is it better to let them hear none at all than that we preach to them Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 59. or 61. Q. 67. Whether it be not one thing to deny total Communion with a Church and another to separate but secundum quid for some Act or Part Whether it be not one thing to separate locally by bodily Absence and another mentally by Schismatical Principles Whether it be not one thing to depart wilfully and another to be unwillingly cast out Whether it be not one thing to depart rashly and in hast and another to depart after due Patience when Reformation appears hopeless First Plea c. p. 38 39. Q. 68. When the publick Good requires Non-conformists to hold distinct Assemblies for Assistance in Doctrine Worship and Discipline as near as they can according to the Will of God to further not to disgrace or hinder the honest Parish-ministers whether are these separate Churches any more than Chappels be Or distinct Churches more than secundum quid holding personal Communion in a godly Conversation with the rest of the Christians in the Parish and also sometimes assembling with them Sacril Desert p. 22 23. Or whether those that do their best to keep up the Reputation of the publick conformable Ministry to further Love and Concord and the success of their Labours with the People and profess to take their own Assemblies but as Chappels and not as distinct much less as separated Churches yea and those who do administer Sacraments and do that which is like the Separatist's Way yet do it not on their Principles but pro tempore till God shall give them Opportunity to serve him in the established Way it being reformed or well-ordered Parish-Churches under the Government and Countenance of the Christian Magistrates which are most agreeable to their Desires whether such I say are justly accounted Separatists First Plea c. p. 246. Q. 69. Whether we may not set up other Churches when we are necessarily kept from those established by publick Power Ib. p. 77. Q. 70. Whether it be Schism to preach and gather Churches and elect and ordain Pastors and assemble for God's Worship against the Laws and Will of Heathen Mahometan or Infidel Princes that forbid it as the Christians did for 300 Years And if there be the same Cause and Need whether it be any more Schism to do it against the Laws and Will of a Christian Prince For 1. Are not Christ's Laws equally obligatory 2. Are not Souls equally precious 3. Is not the Gospel and God's Worship equally necessary 4. And doth his Christianity enable him to do more Hurt than a Pagan may do or more Good Ibid. p. 51 52. Q. 71. If Competent Pastors be set over half the Parishes in a Kingdom and the other half hath incompetent Men or if nine Parts of a Kingdom were competently supplied and but the tenth Part had not such set over them to whom the People may lawfully commit the Pastoral Care of their Souls whether is it Schism or whether is it not a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best Supply they can And whether is it Schism or whether is it not a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiours to perform their Office to such People that desire it Ibid. p. 83. If the Magistrate appoint 20000 or 10000 or one half of a Parish to be excluded for want of Room and Teachers is it not ill supposed that the Gospel is truly and sufficiently preached to them to whom it is not preached at all Or doth it prove it not necessary to them that it is preached to others Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 22. And whether is not the general Ordination of Ministers with the Peoples Necessity and Consent added to God's general Commands to all his Ministers to be faithful and diligent a sufficient obliging Call to such Ministration without the Will of prohibiting Superiours yea against it And otherwise doth it not follow that it is at the Will of a Man whether Souls shall be saved or damned for how shall they believe unless they hear And how shall they hear without a Preacher and at the Will of Man whether Christ shall have a Church and God be publickly worshipped or not First Plea c. p. 48. And whether doth not the indispensible Law of Nature oblige every Man according to his Place and Calling his Ability and Opportunities to do his best to propagate Christ's Gospel and to save Mens Souls as much and more than to feed Mens Bodies and save their Lives And whether are not Ministers specially obliged to do it by their Calling as Ministers of Christ thereto devoted Ibid. Q. 72. There being so many sorts of Churches in the World as Universal National Patriarchal Provincial or Metropolitical Diocesan Classical Parochial Congregational whether must it not be hard to give a just Decision of the Question From which of these and when it is a Sin to separate till it be first known which of those is of Divine and which of Humane Institution and which Humane Churches are necessary which Lawful and which Sinful ibid. p. 7. How is it proved and how cometh it to be any great matter to separate from a Church-â—orm which God never made Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 33. Q. 73. Whether they that say those Species National Patriarchal Provincial Diocesan are of God must not prove that God instituted them in Scripture or else that he gave some Men power to institute them since Scripture-times And till the same be proved
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-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
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