Nor do I find in the New Testament any political Church form but the Universal headed by Christ and particular ones governed by Pastors The General is the constitutive Head of his Army and the Colonel of his Regiment and the Captain of his Troop as distinct subordinate Bodies but the Major General General of the Ordnance Quartermaster General c. may be only under Officers to the whole and the noblest integral parts but as such no constitutive Head of any Body of Men whatever So that General Pastors prove no superior proper Church But because it was lawful in prudence for the Apostles to have taken several Provinces limited severally to each so may men now and if any call such Churches I strive not so the matter be agreed on 8. I ever owned a Christian Kingdom and the agreeing Association of as many Churches as can for mutual help and concord and the King to be their Governor by the Sword And if any will call a Kingdom a Church or an Association that hath no constitutive Government a Church as if he called a Diet or Assembly of many Kings or Princes a Kingdom or Republick let him enjoy his Equivocation so we understand each other 9. According to these Principles I own my self a Member of the universal Church of the Church of England and of the Parish or particular Church where for the time I am called to be that is as they are But I think I may remove from Parish to Parish as I have cause as a dweller or a lodger may and I take not all the Parish to be the Church and take Parish bounds to be no Divine Institution but a humane mutable point of order convenient when by accident it crosseth not the end nor doth more harm than good 10. I think if any Nobleman in London confine his ordinary communion to a just assembly in his happel or any that have a Minister utterly unsuitable to their needs do usually hold communion in the next Parish Church for better he is thereby neither Separatist nor Sinner 11. According to all this when I was silenced I ordinarily heard Dr. Wilkins and Dr. Tillotson and communicated in several places as I had best opportunity and quickly going to Acton I there constantly morning and evening joyned at Common prayer and Sermon communicating in the Sacrament where I had best opportunity being loth for the Parson and Curates sâ—ke to tell you why it was not there once with Dr. Horton and often with Nonconformists The Plague driving me to Hambden I constantly there joyned in all the publick Worship and Sacrament Returning to Acton I did as before and sometime repeated Dean Rieve's Sermon till he got me sent to Gaol for teaching some willing ignorant people between the Church meetings in my house Thence going to Totteridge I many years constantly twice a day joyned in the publick worship and took the Sacrament when administred as Mr. Parre will testifie Thence removing to London and licensed by the King to preach I forbare some time and after chose only the Market house at St. James's openly declaring that we met not as separating from the publick Churches but for the need of multitudes that went to no Church for want of room Since then I have many years joyned in all the publick worship Word Prayer and Sacraments with the Parish Church when able since that I also sometime joyn with Nonconformists and preach my self Afternoons and on Thursdays in the Nonconformists Chappels being not allowed to do it otherwise In the Country in Summer I have far off got into some Parish Churches for a day and tryed neer London but could not have consent though I have Bishop Sheldon's License for that Diocess I think not yet invalidated This is the matter of fact Now Reader Qu. 1. Doth the tenth part of those counted of this Parish Church hear and communicate so oft as I do Q. 2. If not what makes them and not me to be of that Church Q. 3. What is the constancy that this Dr. maketh necessary to a member Q. 4. What are the parts of their worship which he saith I joyn not in Hath he named any Q. 5. Is this only occasional joyning Sect. 3. I do maintain that 1. When consideratis considerandis we may choose the purest Churches and most edifying Ministry it is a duty so to do And one of his answers the Rector c. hath in the Epistle cited his own words not out of the retracted Irenicon but his late Book against Popery expresly threatning us with damnation if we do not To which I find no excuse made by him yea the Papist adversary grants the same 2. I do maintain against those that separate from all Churches which they dare not be stated members of that its lawful to communicate occasionally where we may not do it statedly But is this to deny all save occasional communion with all their Churches 3. I often say that there is so great difference of Parish Ministers and of Persons cases and opportunities and Relations as Wives Children Servants under Parents c. of divers commands c. that to be constant Communicants in their Parish Church is to some a duty to some a sin and so is occasional communion Sect. 4. As to the second sort that hold all communion with them unlawful 1. I leave them to plead their own cause and I meddle only with my own part 2. But I must say that if they mistake those that wilfully give them the occasion are unfit reprovers of them And if men for worldly ends or by error will corrupt and defile a Church to the utmost that is consistent with lawful Communion or neer it they may make the question whether their Communion be lawful too hard for understandings Every one cannot tell whether one in a swoon be alive or dead and some may bury him too hastily Stretch not my similitude beyond my meaning If a Gentleman of the game should by wilful sin get the Lues Venerâ—â— and the case be disputed whether his wife may separate from him or if he beat her once a week if she will not daily eat that which makes her grievous sick and he doth it to exercise his Authority another may better plead against her departure than he If it be a fault in her so to save her self what is it in him to destroy or abuse her If we be forbidden to take poyson and one will causelesly command us to take a doubtful thing as Nightshade Hemlock Aâ—ripigmentum c. and then condemn us as disobedient for refusing he is the unfittest person to condemn us If it be lawful to avoid a house that hath the Plague a man is excusable that mistakes the spotted Fever for it Were your Congregations but full of persons that had the scabs of the small Pox not dryed away and one went to a sounder Congregation for fear of infection not at all condemning you he might be born with
while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Parish cannot hear you much less many greater Parishes that if some of them do but sometimes crowd in perhaps once in many months or weeks by coming with the first and do but dwell in the Parish and own you that they have no need to hear or worship God publickly all the rest of the year and to pretend such need becometh not Sincerity 2. And as to those that meet in lesser Parishes you thought not meet to take notice of my answer assigning many Reasons which I will not repeat any further than to tell you 1. That many Churches there are unbuilt 2. Many come from the greater Parishes to them and some have other Reasons Sect. 15. P. 102. He saith Mr. Baxter hath a whole Chapter Plea p. 141. of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church Answ You are unhappy in History though it be your strength There 's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches but only the Matter of Fact named which is supposed to the Controversie But it being cunningly worded by you it may be by Reasons against Communion with our Churches you meant but as I did Reasons for Nonconformity in those particular Acts But do you not your self all-along suppose and plead that though we conform not yet we should hold Communion with you Why call you then the Reasons of Nonconformity Reasons against Communion Sect. 16. P. 103. He adds in the same Books he saith it is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the transient Sign of the Cross or for want of God-fathers c. or to deny Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who seperate in these things are not Answ 1. Say you so Then we are not only quit but further quit than we can own our selves I undertake to prove that it may be Schism to separate from a Church that is guilty of some Schismatical Acts and Impositions And it needs no proof but the plain History and their Accusations of one another that there are few if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of somewhat that is Schismatical in East VVest North or South in Africk Asia Europe or America Greeks Muscovites Jacobites Abassines Nestorians Armenians Georgians Mengrelians Circassians Papists Lutherans Calvinists Prelaticalls Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists c. And must we separate from them all 2. Verily Sir denying Persons Christendom and Church-Communion are great things And if a Cross and a gesture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day be now matters so weighty as for them to deny Christendome and Communion for shame call them Indifferent no more one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbishop Laâ—d you had been of another mind if words are any notifying Signs of your mind 3. Other Pastors may be used in such instances without separating from you Sir these are not impossibilities to peaceable men In both the places where I formerly preached a publick Minister and a private lovingly joyn as assistants one doing that part which the other cannot And they all live in peace Sect. 17. I am next assaulted Pag. 110. I say The Benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did c. though the least defective must be chosen when no such Reasons sway the other way Reader is not this true Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Parish Churches and from almost all or require us causelesly to choose sins of omission Would you not take him for a separatist that is against this But he saith And hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Unity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church then of the Armâ—nian or Abissine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer Answ 1. This is not true For 1. we take this Church to be far less corrupt than the Armenian or Abissine 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magistrates Laws and Protection c. 2. Is nearness such a trifle with you How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny Tell us why we should be of your Parish Church rather than of one an hundred miles off but for nearness and Cohabitation why else of old had each City its own Church 3. Is Catholick Unity become a Romantick Fancy Is this the same man that wrote the Defence of Archbishop Laud we are not ashamed of the title of Catholick 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other 5. When prove you that I am only for occasional Communion when I have so long practised constant Communion with you These are reasons suitable to your cause Sect. 18. He adds Ask him what Church he is a Member of If he answer he could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none would they if he were at Jerusalem take such a man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church And I much doubt whether they would admit such an one to occasional Communion c. Answ 1. Wonderful Who would have thought that this man had been so much for the Principles of Separation more than the Independants In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys is formally in the whole Church and given to Peter as their Representative which is not true for it was given only to Pastors as such and not to the Laity And now he would make that man no Christian that is no fixed Member of some particular Church Let us examine whether this be true CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Universal Church which is Christs Body is a true Christian But many are Members of the Universal Church which are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Christians for it is their Christening But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 3. He that hath all the Essentials of Christianity is a Christian But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Essentials of Christianity Ergo. 4. A fortiore They that are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church though Baptised are not unchristened for want of such Membership But many Baptized person are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church Ergo. Instances
far to heal us could we obtain it He saith that any one that hath seen them knoweth it to be a mistake to say it was published by John Fox Ans His Reader must be a strong believer and take much on his word 1. I have seen them and spake with men of great understanding that have seen them that yet judge it no mistake 2. The Preface of the publisher is like his Style 3. It is called Praefatio I. F. And can every Reader know that I. F. meaneth not John Fox 4. Ordinary Tradition saith it was Fox's And what should I sooner believe in such a case Instead of proving that they have all a power to their condemnation which we see they exercise not let him procure a real power declared and granted and it will do more than these words Sect. 23. But when it comes to the question whether me may so much as call a sinner to repentance by name before the Church who rejecteth all more private admonition he puts the question whether the obligation to admonish publickly an offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick authority c. Ans The first question is whether Christ have not made his Church so different a thing from the World that they should be openly differenced by a Communion of Saints 2. And whether he hath not instituted an office to judge of this and by Government execute it And 3. Whether any man have authority to suspend this Law or Office And then 4. I shall grant that not only Discipline but Preaching and Prayer and Sacraments may be forborn hic nunc in the present exercise when else the exercise would do more hurt than good 5. But are these Laws good that forbid it and should we Covenant never to endeavour an Alteration Sect. 24. He next tells us of the great difficulty of exercising true Discipline which is most true and seems thence to defend the forbearance of it with us Answ I have in my Treatise of Episcopacy and oft proved that it is of great importance to Christ's ends and that he would have it continued to the last and that the Communion of Saints is a practical Article of Faith and that making small difference between the Church and the World tends to Church destruction and to the reproach of Christianity and the utter undoing of millions of Souls And though Pope and Prelates have abused it to captivate Princes and Nations the just use of it he knoweth is mentioned by the Universal Church and visibly recorded in the Canons of the several ages Though some Erastians are of late against it And Jesuits and worldly Protestants can dispense with it when it would hurt their worldly Interest and turn it chiefly against Gods Servants that displease and cross them Sect. 25. p. 284. He saith The want of Discipline in the Parish Churches was never thought by old Nonconformists destructive to the being of them Answ They did not confound the Power and the Exercise Nor what the Ministers office is indeed and from God and what it is by the Bishops Mind and Rules of Conformity I say as they 1. The Exercise may be suspended without nulling the Power or Policy 2. They are true Pastors and Churches by Gods will against the will of those that would degrade them Sect. 26. But supposing every man left to his own Conscience for Communion 1. He saith the greatest Offenders generally excommunicate themselves Answ 1. And is it your way to leave all the rest to their Consciences and yet to preach and write against and lay in Jail dissenting godly People that communicate not with you 2. And are not all these Offenders still Members of your Church Albaspineus complaineth of their Roman French Church that he never knew any further cast out than from the Sacrament and left still to other parts of communion as Members And so do you by thousands who are all Sons of your Church but we are none He is again at it what Church I was of and I have told him oft enough CHAP. VIII What the National Church of England is Sect. 1. ACcording to the Doctors Method we come now to the Explication of one of the terms of our Controversie so long and loudly called for viz. what the National Church of England is which we must obey and from which we are said to separate p. 287. And the answer is such as may tell Dr. Fulwood and him that it's time to give over wondering that I understood not what they meant by it Sect. 2. Our question is of the Church Policy and Political Form All writers of Politicks difference a meer Community from a Political Body This is essentiated of the two constitutive Parts the Pars Regens and Pars subdita the former is much like the Soul and the later the Body The Ruling Part is called the Form by most and the sorts Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical or mixt the form in Specie as the rational or sensitive Soul to Animals But the Relative Form is the Union of both in their proper order Such a body Politick is a Kingdom a City a Church in the proper and usual sense But in a loose sense many other things may be called a Church As 1. a Community prepared for a governing Form not yet received 2. An occasional Congregation about Religion as Prisoners that pray together Men that meet about a Religious Consultation or Dispute c. 3. Many Churches as under one Christian Magistrate as an accidental Head 4. Many Churches associated for mutual help and concord without any governing Head Either of one Kingdom or of many 5. Many Churches as meerly agreeing in Judgment and Love in distant parts of the World None of these are Churches in the political Sense but are equivocally so called But Politically 1. All the Christian World is one Church as formed by their Relation to Christ the Head 2. All single Churches that have Pastors to guide them in the Essentials of the Pastoral Office are true Churches formed by this mutual Relation These two are undoubted 3. The now Roman Catholick Church is one by Usurpation as informed by one Usurping head 4. A Patriarchal Church is one as Governed by a Patriarch 5. A Provincial Church is one as headed by the Metropolitan or as mixt where Aristocratically others are joyned with him 6. An Archiepiscopal or Diocesan Church that hath particular Churches and Bishops under it is one as headed by that Diocesane Jure an injuriâ I dispute not 7. A Diocesane Church of many score or hundred Parishes having no Episcopus Gregis or true Pastors and Pastoral Churches under him but only half Pastors and Chappels that are but partes Ecclesia is one even of the lowest sort in their opinion as headed by that Diocesane 8. A Presbyterian Classical Church is one as headed by the Classes 9. 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 followes not that I am separated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches 'till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the Communion of all Mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again 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 And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say we do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant no one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssins may have some errors or corruptions yet if they be not fundamental and be not joyned as necessary to be approved in order to their communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully communicate with them it doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from error and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the communion of the Catholick Church Because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errors conditions of communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches Pag. 336. To rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwaies imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin But besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawfull that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary for separation is not lawfull but when it is necessary Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose beleif is necessary to Salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the beleif of fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is just and reasonable And it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause which is pleaded for it Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free like a Common field to all inhabitants Now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to that right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yeild their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Page 358. Although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herself and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the Party so limiting Communion As it was in the Case of the Donatists who were therefore charged with Schisme because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge that they were The sum of this discourse is that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsical and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church But still what ever Church makes such extrinsical things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yeild not to them is Schismatical in so doing For it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church And the saparation from it is so
all the Anabaptists Independants Presbyterians c. Who never were of their Church to be none of the Separatists here meant But if by withdrawing he mean not joyning in Communion either he meaneth in the whole Communion or but in part If the whole then the many thousands that live in the Parishes and Communicate not in the Sacrament are no members of the Parish Church And who knoweth then who are of their Church And how few in many Parishes are of it that yet pass for Members of the Church of England And yet I that joyn with them am none of it in their account And. 3. What meaneth he by Constant Communion I go to the Parish Church when sickness hindreth not once a day I go to the Sacrament and am none of their Church Thousands go but rarely and thousands scarce at all at least to the Sacrament and these are of their Church and no separatists 4. But perhaps the conjunction is explicative and joyn with separate Congregations for greater purity and Edification If so then he that never joyneth with them nor any other is none of the intended separatists 2. Nor he that goeth to other Churches on other accounts than for purity of Worship and Edification As Papists that go as to the only true Church for the Authority § 3. But the utter ambiguity is in the word separate And that you may understand it he explaineth it by repeating it By separation he means withdrawing to separate Congregations But the doubt is which are the separate Congregations I named many sorts of Lawful and unlawful separations but he will not tell us which he meaneth by any intreaâ—y § 4. I would my self yet that I may be understood tell the reader what sorts of separation I renounce and what I own But I have done it so oft and largely that I am ashamed to repeat it as oft as mens confusion calls me to it The reader who thinks it worth his labour may see it done in my first Plea for Peace and in the Preface to my Cath. Theol. and specially in the beginning of the third Part of my Treat of Concord and in Christ Direct And he calls me here afterward to the same Certainly it is only sinful separation that is in the question and as certainly there are many sorts not sinful I am locally separate from all Churches save that where I am I morally separate from the Roman Church as an unlawful Policy and all other which are in specie against Gods word I separate from some for Heresie as being not capable matter of a Church while they own not all the Essence of Christianity I separate from some as Imposing sin and refusing my Communion without it I separate from some as having no lawful Pastors some being uncapable matter and some being usurpers that have no true call I separate from some only so far as to prefer a better rebus sic stantibus sometime a better as to the Doctrine sometime as to the Worship sometime as to the Discipline sometime and mostly as to the Pastors worth and work some go from their own Parish because the Minister is very ignorant in comparison of another to whom they go some that hear the Minister preach against preciseness and for Ceremonies had rather hear another that calleth them to holiness some that have tollerable Preachers go to Doctor Stilling sleet and Doctor Tillotson as better some go for neerness to another Church Some go from their own Parish because the Minister cuts the Common-prayer too short and Preacheth too long some because they would have it so go to such some because the Parson is an Arminian others because he is contrary Some go to the Minister that is strict in keeping the scandalous from the Sacrament some therefore go from him some remove their Dwellings or Lodgings for these ends and some do not some go from their own Parish for the benefit of the Organs in another And of old when Nonconformists had Parish Churches and used some part of the Liturgy many went to them from their own Parishes Some of these are lawful some are unlawful Most certainly they that go from their own Parishes yea or to Nonconformists Assemblies in London go not all on the same account Nor doth the Doctor and such other separate from me as I am said to do from them but otherwise and much more § 5. If he would first have told us what Separation is sinful secondly and then have proved us guilty of it instead of the confused talk of Separation and a begging the question by suposing that to be sinful which he will neither discribe nor prove such it had been of some usefulness to our conviction But I confess I never liked those Physitians who give their Patients the Medicines that they are best stored with or they can best spare be the disease whatsoever Nor the disputer that poureth out what he is best furnished to say how useless soever to the reader or to the Cause Disputeing should not be like boys playing at Dust point who cover their Points in a great heap of Dust and then throw Stones or Cudgels at it and he that first uncovereth them wins them Dusty heaps of ambiguous words confusedly poured out befriend not Truth that should be Naked nor the reader § 6. Some thought it was the Place called Conventicle houses which made the Conformists call us Separatists and they got oft into Parish Churches and Chappell 's But these were made the worst of separatists and punished the more And doubletss it is not meeting at any of the new Tabernacles nor at the Spittle nor at Sturbridge Fair where Preaching hath long been used nor in a Prison nor at the Gallows to Prisoners and People which are faulty Separation § 7. Some thought that they meant that its want of the Common-prayer that maketh us Separatists and they have tryed and read the Common-prayer in their Assemblys But these have been accused and suffered the more And even Mr. Cheny was forced to fly his Country for reading it and Preaching in an unlicensed meeting And some reading more and some less by this it will not be known who are the Separatists The old Nonconformists in their Parish Churches read some more some less and now some Conformists vary They say a Conformist at Greenwich keepeth up a Common-prayer Conventicle some Conformists are accused for overpassing much One lately suspended for wearing the Surplice too seldom and refusing to pray for our gratious Queen and James Duke of York How much of this goeth to make a Separatist § 8. Some thought it was want of the Magistrates leave that made them call us separatists But when the King Licensed us the accusation was the same yea Mr. Hinkley and many others tell you that they took this for worst of all § 9. Some say it is want of the Bishops Licence But as Mr. Tho. Gouge hath his University Licence and I have Bishop Sheldon's Licence
1. The Eunuch baptized in his Travails Acts. 9 was only a Member of the Church Universal 2. Those that were converted by Frumentius and Edesius when there was no particular Church And all that are first converted in any Infidel or Heathen Land before any Church be formed 3. Those that by Shipwrack are cast on heathen Countries where no Churches are 4. Travellers that go from Country to Countries as Lythgow did nineteen years and others many And I think he unhappily named Jerusalem where Travellers come that are of no fixed Church unless he in that also be a Superindependant and think that men may be many years Members of a Church many hundred miles off which they have no personal communion with 5. Merchants and Factors who are called to dwell long among Infidels where are no Churches 6. Embassadors who by their Princes are sent to reside among such much of their lives 7. Wanderers that have no fixed habitations as many Pedlers and other poor wandering Tradesmen and loose Beggars that have no Dwelling 8. Those thot live among Papists or any other Christians who impose some sin as a condition of communion 9. Those that live among such Christians as have no true Pastors who are constitutive parts of particular Churches Some being incapable through insufficiency some by Heresie and some for want of a true Call Such as by Mr Dodwells Doctrine most of the Christian World are for want of uninterrupted rrue Episcopal Ordination 10. Those who are subjects to such as permit them not to be fixed Members As Wives hindred by Husbands Children by Parents and some Subjects violently hindred by Princes who yet allow them transient Communion And verily a man would think by the writings of many Conformists that they took it for a Duty to obey a Prince in such a case 11. Those who live where Church-corruptions are not so great as to make transient Communion unlawful but so great as to make fixed communion seem to be a culpable consent If I come in travel to a Church of Strangers I am not bound to examine what their Discipline is what their Lives be or how their Pastors are called But where I am fixed I am more bound to know these and if I find them exclude Discipline live wickedly and have unlawful Pastors I may in some cases be a partaker of the sin if I fix among them 12. They that live in a time and place of Schism and distraction striving who shall prevail and condemning each other all following several Factions and needing Reconcilers It may for a time become in prudence the duty of peace-makers to own no Faction nor to be more of one Church than of another while he seeth that it will do more hurt than good And those that wait in hope as the Nonconformists now do to see whether their Rulers will restore them to reformed Parish Churches may at once in prudence find it needful neither to fix as Members in some Parish Churches till reformed in the Teachers at least nor to seem to be Separatists by gathering new Churches In none of all these cases is a man unchristened nor schismatical for being no fixed member of any Church besides the Universal And as it is the ill hap of these men commonly to strike themselves I doubt they will prove Grotius himself no Christian by this Rule who for many years before he died they say joyned with no particular Church as a fixed member And I know not well what particular Church they make the King a Member of Sect. 2. To his Questions Pag. 3. Were we not Baptized into this Church and do you not Renounce Membership This is scarce a civility I answer 1. This Church which Church do you mean I was not Baptized into St. Giles's nor St. Andrew's Parish Church but into one above an hundred miles off and yet my removal made me no culpable Separatist Or doth he mean This Diocesan Church No I was Baptized in the Diocess of Lichfield Doth he mean This National Church as it is supposed a political body constituted of the Ecclesiastical Governing and Governed Parts he saith there is no such Church of England but that It inferreth Popery to assert such But if he equivocate here and mean not by a Church as in the rest but either a christian Kingdom or an agreeing Association of many Churches I am still a fixed member of such a Kingdom and of such an Association in all things necessary to Churches and Christian Communion 2. But Baptism as such entred me only into the Universal Church much less did it fix me in any other I was Baptized where I was to stay but a little while And this phrase of being Baptized into our Church is to me of ill sound or intimation Bellarmine saith that all that are baptized are interpretatively thereby engaged to the Pope I was baptized in a Parish and in a Diocess and in a Christian Kingdom but not so into them as to be obliged to continue under that Priest or Bishop or in that Kingdom And my Baptism I hope did not oblige me to every Canon Ceremony Form or Sin of the associated Churches in England abusively by him called one Church 3. And unhappily it is not meer Independancy that he is still pleading for but some extremes which the moderate Independants disclaim viz. That a member of their Churches is so tyed to them that they may not remove to another without their consent And am I so tyed to what to Parochial or to the Diocesan or to the association of English Churches If it had been to the Species I would fain know whether their things called by them Indifferents specifie them Sect. 3. P. 111 112. He yet more pleads as for Separation why then above once or twice why should I so countenance defective Worship and not rather reprove it by total forbearance of Communion c. Answ My Reasons I told him because the accidents may continue which made it a Duty but I cannot hinder others from yielding to his arguments Let him make his best of them Only I must tell him yet 1. that if he lay his cause on this that their Parochial or Diocesan Churches are not defective 2. Or that the defects cannot by others be avoided he will quite marr his matter and undo all by overdoing 3. And if he indeed think that all defective Churches must be forsaken he will be one of the greatest Schismaticks in the World But who can reconcile this with the scope of his whole Book Sect. 4. P. 112. He saith Here are no bounds set to peoples Fancies of purer Administrations Answ Have I so oft and copiously named the bounds and now is the answer Here are none Are there none in all the same Books he citeth 2. Scripture is their bounds as he well openeth in his desence of Biâ—hop Laud. Sect. 5. P. 114. He complains of my leaving out the best part of his argument viz. The people may go
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
and next parts were all to communicate with the Bishop and were no more than could meet to choose the Bishops and to be present as to the main body of them and disciplinary debates to give consent 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage a place of greatness and great numbers of Christians the Church was grown very great but not beyond the exercise of such personal Communion as I described And the Bishops there and round about being worthy men kept up the life of the former Discipline And as great as their Church was we would be glad of such an Episcopacy Order and Communion For I oft told you that by present Communion I meant not that all must meet in one place at once For the tenth part of some Parishes cannot But that as Neighbours and Citizens may have personal Converse and Meetings per vices of some at one time and some at another as different from meer mental Communion or by Synods or Persons delegate or as their Governours or Representatives and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine Worship and Conversation And that the footsteps of this remained long when worldly Reasons had made a change And all this I have proved so fully in my Treatise of Episcopacy besides what 's said in my Abstract of the Episcopal History that till some man shall confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought I have no more in Reason to do upon that subject And though the Doctors History of this be the most considerable part of all his Book yet so far doth he leave what I say uncontradicted that I find not one word that he saith against any of my Testimonies nor any for his own cause for the first two hundred years But when he should have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years he begins his historical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World and so proceeds to Augustine at above four hundred and Victor Uticensis about four hundred and ninety Theodoret four hundred and thirty where he supposeth me to say that of his City which I said of the Diocess of that City And to confute all Impertinencies and groundless Suppositions while my full proofs are unanswered is but loss of time Sect. 3. His chief argument is that no City how great soever was to have more Bishops than one Ans 1. He can prove no such Rule in the first two hundred years 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree Gratious de Imperio in Anotat and Dr. Hammond I cited who say that Cities at first had two Bishops in each Rome Antioch c. one of Jewish Christians and one of Gentile Christians and saith D. H. Peter at Rome was Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles and they had two Successors and saith Gretius The Churches were formed to the manner of the Synagogues and there were divers Churches with divers Bishops in the same City in 1 Tim. 5. 17. de Imp. p. 355 356 357. 3. In the fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Bishops with their several Churches at Antioch Flavian's and Evagrins should live together in Love and Peace 4. This was a good custom while there were in the Cities no more than one Bishop might take care of And the custom held when times altered the case and reason of it And Possession and the Desire to avoid division made it held up by good men 5. I have at large in my Treatise of Episcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Bishops to Cities and so did the old Churches that set up Chorepiscopos Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars Ans 1. Yes no doubt after the second Century and perhaps in two Cities a little before but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question But when I told him how this would agree us and hurt his cause he will quickly fall under his own censure and became a stranger to the history of the Church asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop This Sermon was written since his Irenicon And now he feigneth a distinction between An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop and for the place at which Christians did communicare But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop Was it not the material place of Communicn And so the members of the distinction are co-incident Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes corporis sanguimis Christi Each Church had long but one of these The best Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion but honorary of some Martyrs The truth is the phrase of unum Altare was taken up when each Church had but one but to set up Altare contra Altare continued after to signifie Anti-Churches But I have fully answered this in my Treatise of Episcopacy His conjectures from the numbers of Officers c. he may see there also sufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hist And the odd instance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popish Feigners And were that Epistle genuine a Cypher is easily dropt in by Corrupters It hath need of better authority that shall be so singular from the case of all other Churches And I suppose he knoweth that Cyrus was not a simple Bishoprick but a Metropolitane Seat and might have 800 Parish Bishops Yea whereas there were under Antioch seven Dioceses and fifteen Provinces or as others say thirteen that yet had many Bishops under them as Seleucia twenty four c. that were more dependant on Antioch Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per se subsistentes And therefore when Theodoret said how many Churches were under hands it 's like he meant Bishops Churches and not meer Presbyters and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account or else the Bishops had but single Congregations But for my part as the case so late concerneth me not so I see nothing to perswade me that that Epistle is genuine and uncorrupt But I would not have a Diocess which then had many Provinces or a Province which had many Bishops Churches be taken for a single Church Sect. 5. The same I say of Carthage which was the Metropolis of Africa and the first of six Provinces before
A SECOND TRUE DEFENCE OF THE MEER Nonconformists AGAINST THE Untrue ACCUSATIONS REASONINGS and HISTORY of Dr. EDWARD STILLINGFLEET DEAN of St. PAULS c. Clearly proving that it is not sin but duty 1. Not wilfully to commit the many sins of Conformity 2. Not Sacrilegiously to forsake the Preaching of the Gospel 3. Not to cease publick worshipping of God 4. To use needful Pastoral helps for salvation though men forbid it and call it Schism Written by RICHARD BAXTER not to accuse others but to defend Gods Truth and the true way of Peace after near 20 years loud Accusations of the silencing prosecuting Clergy and their Sons With some Notes on Mr. Joseph Glanviles Zealous and Impartial Protestant and Dr. L. Moulins Character 1 Tim 6. 5 6. Perverse disputings of men of corrupt minds and destitute of the truth supposing that gain is godliness from such withdraw thy self But godliness with contentment is great gain LONDON Printed for Nevil Simons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls 1681. AN Historical Preface § 1. THE matter of fact occasioning this second Defence hath been formerly and is after here opened in part I need now but briefly tell the Reader that after the long difference between the English Prelatists and those that desired Reformation and Discipline the most of the English Ministers who were in possession of the Parish-Churches from 1646 till 1660 obeyed the Parliament so far as to disuse the English Book of Common-Prayer and Subscription and Obedience to the Diocesan Episcopacy some of them being most for Church-Government by Synods of Parochial Pastors and assisting Elders and most for a Reconciling of the several divided Parties thinking somewhat in the Episcopal Presbyterian and Independent Parties to be good and somewhat in each of them unwarrantable 1. They were so far Independent as to hold that particular Churches associated for Personal Communion in faith worship and holy living were of Divine Institution such as true parish-Parish-Churches are and that each of these Churches ought to have its proper exercise of that Discipline which is described by Christ Mat. 18. and by St. Paul 1 Cor. 5. and in other Texts of holy Scripture and was exercised in the days of Ignatius and so on for many hundred years some part of it still remaining even to the times of Popery Therefore they held that the Pastors of such Churches must be such as had power to exercise the said Discipline And they held that Parish-Bounds were of great convenience against disorder though not of Divine Institution not taking all that dwell in a Parish to be eo nomine of the Church but such of them as were capable by continued owning their Baptismal Covenant not nullified by proved Heresie or inconsistent wickedness And they held that no unwilling person was capable of a sealed Pardon of sin and so of church-Church-Communion nor yet of the true receiving of the use of the Pastoral office And therefore that none but free Consenters should have the Sacrament nor be related to the Pastor as his Flock of that Church but the rest should be constrained to live as Catechumens or Hearers as they were capable in peace and quietness and such as the Magistrate found meet to be tolerated in other Churches who only were uncapable in that 2. They were so far for Presbytery as to hold that 1. If men of competent sufficiency were made by ordination Elders ejusdem ordinis with the chief Pastor to be his Assessors and Assistants though they seldom or never Preached publickly but helped him in Catechizing or private over sight and in judging persons and cases and though in necessity they laboured with their hands it would not be unlike the ancient Government 2. And they judged that all Gods work should be done in the greatest concord and with the best mutual counsel and help that might be and therefore that Synods are to that end of great use and if they were appointed at stated times and places it would by order be a furtherance to their ends But they were not for their assuming a proper Regent Power by Majority of Votes over the minor part or the absent Pastors and thought that when sixedness occasioned that usurpation occasional Synods pro re natâ were better And 3. They judged that Presbyters are ejusdem ordinis with Bishops and that no Bishops have a divine right to govern without the Presbyters assistance nor to deprive them of any of their power nor their Churches of true Discipline or Worship nor the people of their Rights much less to use any forcing power of the sword on any 3. They were so far for Episcopacy as to hold it lawful and convenient that the particular Churches have one that shall have a Priority and in many things a Negative Vote as the Incumbent in each Parish hath among his Curates a sort of power And that the Presbyteries and Synods have their Moderators and if they were fixed durante vitâ and had a Negative Vote in Ordinations they could consent sobeit they were duly chosen as of old and had no forcing power by the sword but only a Ministerial teaching guiding power And some of them thought it of Divine right that the Apostles and Evangelists have Successors in the ordinary parts of their office and that to have a special caâ—e of many Churches and their Bishops and Elders are some of that ordinary part 4. And to the Erastians also they granted that the King is the Supreme Governour of the Church by the sword or force and that we must obey him not only when he enforceth the Commands of Christ but in all acts of outward circumstance and order left by God to his determination and not appropriated to the Ministers office These were the thoughts then of the far greatest part of the Ministers that I had then knowledge of § 2. Before the King returned many Episcopal Doctors and great men perswaded these Reconcilers that thus much would be accepted to our common concord if the King were restored But some said They do but decieve you there are such men now got into chief credit on that side that will silence you all and ruine you unless you will follow Grotius or be of the French Religion or unite in the Pope as Principium unitatis and obey him as the Western Patriarck c. And when you are all turned out what men have they to supply your places § 3. But when the King came in and encouraged the Reconcilers with the promise of his help they made the attempt in 1660 and 1661. the History of which I need not repeat Since that foreseeing what the silencing of so many Ministers and the afflicting of the people of our mind would unavoidably cause we pleaded we petitioned the Bishops to have prevented it by those necessary means which they might have yielded to to their own advantage But it was all in vain § 4. When the Act of
would have all walk by he will not do it but instead of that with unusual gentleness tells me he will not differ about it if I do but grant that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace which I cheerfully grant And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear silencing us imprisoning us accusing us as odious for not wilful sinning and urging Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and making us seem Schismaticks for not forbearing to Preach the Gospel to which we were vowed and consecrated by Ordination I know not lawful from unlawful I cannot yet get him to tell us what he would have the many score thousands do on the Lords Days that have no room in the Parish-Churches with many such which our case is concerned in § 14. I thought his Book had been an Answer to mine and other mens Prefaces but I find that I was mistaken Indeed he nameth five Books written against his Accusation what he saith to Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsop I leave to themselves to consider of The Countrey Gentlemans Case in sense was this Whether all they that think Parish Communion under the present impositions to be sin are bound till they can change their judgment to forbear all Church-worship and live like Atheists and so be damned And who can find any Answer to this Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books he saith next nothing to but a dark retracting his Irenicon And far be it from me to blame him for growing wiser But why took he no notice of his own words cited in the Epistle out of his late Book against Idolatry threatning us all with no less than damnation if me prefer not the purest Church And as to my Defence his Book is nothing like an Answer unless his naming me and citing out of that and other Books a few broken scraps which he thought he could make some advantage of may be called an Answer § 15. I confess he hath made some attempt to tell me what the National Church of England is but so Independently as I doubt his party will disown it with great offence In short he holds that there is no such thing as a Church of England in the usual Political sense having any Constitutive Ecclesiastical Supreme Power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it 's only the many Churches in England associated by the common consent in Parliament c. Remember that he and I are so far agreed As I was writing this I saw a Book against him of a friend too much for me and somewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this point would help them by saying that the Convocation having the Legislative Church-Power may be the Constitutive Regent part But he confesseth to me that he spake not what is but what he counts should be or wisheth for the Dr. himself had before told us that the Convocations of Canterbury and York are two and not united to make one National supreme power so that this proveth no one political Church of England at all but only 2 Provincial Churches in England § 16. The Dr. hath so judiciously and honestly pleaded our Cause in his defence of A. Bishop Laud and his Book against Idolatry that I have made his words the first Chap. of this Book which if he candidly stand to I see not but our principles are the same § 17. His book is made up of 3 parts I. Untrue Accusations II. Untrue Historical Citations abundance III. Fallacious Reasonings Would you have an undeniable Confutation ad hominem in few words I. As to his Principles he saith himself as aforesaid Of Idolat p. 7. We are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin II. As to his History of the old Nonconformists read A. Bishop Bancrofts dangerous Positions and Heylins History of Presbytery charging them odiously with the clean contrary and the Canons made against them on that supposition III. As to his History and Doctrine against the Election of Bp s which I pleaded as I have fully proved his abuse of History in it I repeat Mr. Thorndikes words Forbear of Penalty It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation of the Churchtoregular Government without restoring the liberty of choosing Bishops and priviledg of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it O pray hard to God to provide greater store of skilful holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harvest that by the sound belief of a better world have overcome the deluding love of the honours prosperity and pleasures of the flesh and wholly live to God and Heaven POSTSCRIPT DR Edward Stillingfleet Irenic P. 114. saith The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or in the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Pastor nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least foot-step of the delegation of Church-power so that upon the matter all of them at last make use of those things in Church-Government which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence guided by Scripture and it were well if that were observed still P. 370. Surely then their Diocesses we re not very large if all the several Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church P. 361. I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City P. 157. There must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Laws For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible Society as a particular National Church For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after than of any one Congregation P. 131. The Churches power as to Divine Law being only directive and declarative but as confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory P. 113. Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in Doctrine and in practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of Communion with her there a Noncommunion with that Church is necessary and a
total and positive separation is lawful and convenient P. 117. Where any Church retaining purity of Doctrine doth require the owning of and conforming to any unlawful or suspected practice men may lawfully deny Conformity to and Communion with that Church in such things without incurring the guilt of Schism P. 119. Let men turn and wind themselves which way they will by the very same argument 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 c. They lay the imputation of Schism on all them who require such Conditions of Communion and take it wholly off from those who refuse to Conform for Conscience sake A Premised explication of the Equivocal word CHURCH THE word CHURCH being Equivocal is unfit for our disputation till explained It signifieth being a Relative several sorts of related Assemblies which are distinct I. In their Matter A Church of Jews Turks Christians of Orthodox and of Hereticks being not one thing II. In the Efficient A Church of Gods instituting or a Church of mans III. In the Fnds. 1. A Christian Assembly at a Fair or Market or Court or Army c. is not the same with an Assembly for Religious exercises 2. Nor an Assembly for Legislation about Religion in Parliament or Consultation in Synods or Disputation in Schools the same thing as an Assembly for stated worship c. IV. In the Form or Constitutive Relation to the Correlate And so the great difference which now concerneth us to note is that a Church of Equals in Office and Power is one thing and a Political Society related as Governours and governed is another The first is either an accidental Assembly or else a designed Assemby by consent This last is either an Assembly of Lay-men which may be agreed hereafter to come under Government and may meet to worship God without a Pastor and this in Politicks is usually called a meer Community 2. Or an Assembly of Rulers or Pastors in equality as to Government there And this is called a Council Synod Dyet Parliament Convention c. V. A Governed or Political Church is of Three several Species at least as there are three Species of such Government I. A Christian Family consisting of the Family-Government and Governed living together in holy faith love worship and obedience to God the Master being their Teacher Ruler and Guide in worship II. A Pastoral-Church consisting of one or more Pastors and Christian people correlated as his flock for the benefit of his Pastoral office which essentially containeth a power to teach them lead them in worship and govern them by the Keys as a Ministerial Judg who is fit for that Commmunion All together is called also the Power of the Keys and is subordinate to Christs Teaching Priestly and Ruling Office III. A Royal or Magistratical Church consisting of a Christian Soveraign and Christian Subjects to be ruled by his sword or forcing power under Christ and his Laws for the spiritual and temporal welfare of the society and the glorifying and pleasing the Lord Redeemer And IV. The Universal Church comprehendeth all these three as parts and is most excellently properly and fully called the Church consisting of Jesus Christ the chief Pastor Teacher Priest and King an eminent perfect Policy with all Christians as the subject part It is visible in that the subjects and their profession and worship are visible aod Christ was visible on earth is visible in the Court of Heaven his Laws and Providence are visible and he will visibly judg the world and reign for ever And it is no further visible The constitutive essential parts are only Christ and his subject-body The noblest organical parts of that body are Prophets Apostles Evangelists Pastors and Teachers In all this note 1. That we have no difference that I know of about the Church in any of these senses before mentioned except 1. How far men may invent Church-forms for Gods service without Gods particular prescript or institution 2. Whether it be true that the King is so persona mixta as some hold as to be King and Priest and to have the power of Church-Keys and Word and Sacraments 3. Whether over and above the lowest Pastoral Churches Christ hath instituted a direct superior Pastoral sort of Churches to rule the inferior in Faith Worship and the Keys of Discipline over Pastors and people And if so what are these superior Pastoral Churches whâ—ther Diocesan Provincial National Patriarchal Papal or all And if Christ made no such whether men may make them 2. And note that we are certainly agreed that the Magistratical form of forcing power and the Pastoral form of Sacerdotal power of the Keys are two though the subjects should be the same though usually the Church is in the Commonwealth as part And none of us deny a Christian Common-wealth Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical and though this power be over the Pastoral Church it is but Accidental and not Essential to it 3. And note that the chief questions which I put to the Dr. about this were 1. What is the Pastoral specifying form of the Church of England And 2. Whether it be of Divine or humane Institution And I have brought him to maintain that there is no such Church of England at all And of the Royal Church or Kingdom we are Members as well as he 4. And Lastly Note that as to a Pastoral Church we agree I suppose in distinguishing a Transient and a fixed relation And as he that is a Licensed Physician acteth as such where he cometh though related fixedly to no Hospital so if a lawful Minister of Christ either fixed in another Church or in none but the Universal be called pro tempore for a day to do his office in another Church he acteth as Christs Minister and their Pastor for that dayâ— And if a travelling Christian joyn with them he is a Member for that day Yea if the whole company intend to meet but that one day in the same relations to the same ends it is a temporary transient Pastoral Church But fixed Inhabitants for order and edification ought to fix their relation and practice Though most of this be said after where he calls me to it I thought meet here to premise the Explication of the word Church as in divers books largely I have done of the word Separation lest I imitate him in leaving my explication to the hinder part and we should dispute about a word which the Reader and perhaps our selves understand not But we have a greater controversie than this risen since A. Bishop Laud's and Grotius's Reconciling design v z. what the Catholick visible Church is 1. Protestants have hitherto held as the first point of difference from the Papists that the Universal Church hath no constitutive Head or supreme regent Power but Christ He hath setled no one
Vicarious or deputed supreme Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical 2. Accordingly they noted the difference of two sorts of Papists some that set the Pope as superior above Councils others as the Councils of Constance and Basil and the French that make the General Council supreme the Pope being President as the chief of the Patriarchs and having many priviledges as Primate to the Universal Church 3. But that in truth the Catholick governing power of Pope and the other four Patriarchs was but a humane form of Church Policy setled in one Empire as a National kind of Church and the Councils were Universal as to the Empire but not to all the Christian world which I have proved against W. Johnson fully called by the Emperour that had no power over other Nations and subscribed by his subjects 4. That the grand cheat that hath set up Popery is the turning this National Church into an Universal Government of all the Christian world and pretending that Christ or his Apostles set up that power over all which Emperours and Imperial Councils set up only over one Empire 5. We are sworn against Forreign Jurisdiction by the Oath of Supremacy For the Roman Empire is dissolved and if it were not we are no subjects of it 6. Yet we hold that all Christians should live in all possible love and concord counselling and helping one another for the edification of the Church and that such Councils are useful thereto as may be had without more hurt than good But that no Universal governing power besides Christs for Legislation Judgment or Execution is needful to that concord nor is a Government of the whole Christian world by any one Political supreme Pope or Council or Colledg of Pastors or Cardinals any more possible or lawful to be sought than that all the Kingdoms on earth have one humane civil Soveraign though all Kings as well as all Bishops are bound to serve God with the greatest concord that they can attain But now he that will read many late Divines of England will find that they are come to this 1. To take the foresaid Conciliar and French Papists to be no Papists and so to make it a controversie de nomine in which for me let them have their liberty 2 To take it for a necessary thing to believe that the Universal Church in the world hath one supreme governing power under Christ and is a Society that is therein visibly one And 3. That this one ruling power is either a General Council or the Colledg of all Bishops on earth 4. And that the Imperial Church-form was and is to be the true Universal Church form viz. a General Council where the five Patriarchs are by themselves or by consent 5. And that the Pope is President and Principium unitatis and chief Patriarch and so to be obeyed by us 6. And that there is no true way to Universal concord but by being of this one Church so formed and obeying its Universal Laws which they say christ hath given them power to make 7. And that they are Schismaticks and not to be tolerated that do not so consent and obey 8. Yea say some to us in England it is compelled obedience to all the present Impositions which only must cure our divisions without abatement for Union or any Tolerations A great deal more of this nature is built on this principle that the Church in all the earth is one as under one humane supreme Government under Christ and that all are Schismaticks that are not of it and obey it not I am not for disgracing any by the name of Papists that refuse it whether the French and the councils of Pisa Constance and Basil shall be called Papists I contend not But whether those false principles be the only terms of concord wise men will cautelously consider ADVERTISEMENT THere is lately Published a Book of the same Authors called A Search for the English schismatick by the Case and Characters 1. Of the Diocesan Canoneers 2. Of the Present Meer Nonconformists Not as an Accusation of the former but a necessary Defence of the latter so far as they are wrongfully accused and persecuted by them And is to be sold by Nevill Simmons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls THE CONTENTS AN Historical Preface Dr. Stillingfleet's judgment as in his Irenicon A Premised explication of the equivocal word Church What the Catholick Church is in our judgment and what in the judgment of many of our silencers Chap. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet's large and plain Asserting of our principles in his Defence of Archbishop Laud and Rom. Idolatry p. 1. Chap. 2. Some Animadversions on his Preface Whether the Jesuits first brought in Spiritual Prayer A full explication of our judgment about Spiritual Prayer His hard terms against mens high or low chusing Tutors for their Children p. 11. Chap. 3. Dr. Stillingfleet his Accusations examined His confusion disputing a question not stated What he means by Our Church by Communion by Constant by Withdrawing by Separate Congregations what Separation I am for or against Whether he say true that my Tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conforming were written without the least provocation on their part or that as designed to represent the Clergy as notorious Lying perjured Villains p. 22. c. Chap. 4. His false History of the old Nonconformists as if Bancroft's Danger Posit Heylin and all such old accusers utterly belyed them and the Canons made against them had a false supposition his citations examined More proof of his falsification The difference between the Nonconformists and the Brownists How we are used by them The Reformatio Legum Eccles how much for discipline I now add my request to the Reader that would know how far the first Reformers were of the Nonconformists mind and against our new Church-men that they would but read Cranmers and the other Drs. words cited by Dr. Stillingfleet in the end of his Irenicon and left out of Dr. Burnet's History and Bucer's Scripta Anglicana De Regno Del his Censura of the Liturgy de cura Anim. c. The story of Dr. Ames Paul Bayne Dr. Fulk c. Dr. Humphrey's Letter to the Bishops p. 55 56 57. Chap. 5. The false Reasonings and accusations of his second part p. 59. My judgment and case stated which he falsly reporteth Others Cases considered Whether it be true That there is no other reason against Communion than was at the first Reformation Difference proved 1. From the things imposed 2. From the design of the imposers 3. From the effects 4. From the case of the Church with whom we Communicate 5. From the additional reasons for our Preaching p. 64. What he would have them do that cannot have room in their Churches p. 70. His appeal to my case at Kederminster shamed p. 71 c. His false supposition that most of my Hearers need not our Teaching because they sometimes hear in the Parish-Churches
p. 73. He acquits them from Schisme that separate if the Church be Schismatical 74. I desire the Reader then to Read my few Sheets called A search for the English Schismatick More mistakes p. 74 75. Chap. 6. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church The Doctors Schismatical Error Confuted p. 76. He by this condemneth Apostles and Evangelists that were Itinerant and unfixed such as Bucer de Regno Dei would have sent abroad my exceptions about Churches and Ministers justified and his Calumny detected p 80. Whether I give too much to the People or am against the Rights of Patrons or Magistrates p. 82. Many more Calumnies to p. 89. He accuseth me as accusing them for naming the sins that I dare not commit p. 89. More of his vain Accusations to p. 92. Whether he be for silencing us p. 92. More of his Calumny p. 99. Considerable Quere to him p. 94. How he would drive men to Separation p. 95 96. He is come to Self-condemning Gentleness in expounding his Rule and Text Phil. 3. 16. p. 97. His sad Ennumeration of the causes of just Separation p. 98. Chap. 7. He begins his Third Part with more false Accusations p. 99. His History for Diocesan Churches against Parochial found fallacious p. 100 c. His vain Plea for the English Frame p. 106 c. He saith It s probable while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few p. 108. And Dr. Hammond saith No Subject Presbyters whether John Fox were the Publisher or Prefacer of the Reformatio Legum c. p. 109. Discipline hard but not unnecessary p. 111. Chap. 8. What the National Church of England is fully discussed and the Doctors Self-contradictions detected He denyeth any true Political Church of England He and we more agreed than he and other high Church-men that are for a Constitutive Political Government p. 112 113 c. He maketh it an introduction of Popery to hold that a Church must have a Constutive Regent Church-power and so fasteneth Popery on the Masters of his cause Chap. 9. That the mutual Consent of Pastors and flock is necessary to the very being of their Relation About Thirty Proofs from Antiquity that the Universal Church was for about 1000 years of that mind and decreed it p. 128 c. The necessity of consent proved from the Nature of the work where the reasons of it are all plainly opened p. 133. c. The Doctors contrary surmises and false Histories fully confuted p. 136 c. Chap. 10. Of the imposed Use of the Cross in Baptisme and denying Baptisme to the refusers p. 153. His vaine excuses confuted Whether the Cross be used as a Sacrament His disingenuous falsifying my words of the use of Crucifixes and other Images p. 156 c. What the Papists ascribe to Sacraments p. 168. Chap. 11. Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicate Nonconformists for not Communicating when ipso facto Excommunicate be guilty of Schisme p. 163. Chap. 12. Of the English sort of Sponsors and the Exclusion of the Parents Duty p. 167. see more in the Postscript Chap. 13. Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth p. 171. Chap. 14. Epistles and Testimonies Compar'd with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Jo. Glanviles Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant With a Letter of his to the Author and a Digression about Dr. Lewis du Moulin his Published Picture and Death-bed Repentance A Postscript of five notices viz. 1. Of a new Observation of the Trade of taking mony to be Godfathers to Poor mens Children and missing Baptisme for want of mony 2. A Letter of Mr. W. Rathbands of his Fathers judgment and Practice 3. An Excellent Confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets History of the extent of Dioceses and Choice of Bishops fully proving that the old Bishops were Parochial or Congregational and always chosen by the People or not made theirs without their free Consent By a Learned and faithful Minister 4. An Excellent Vindication of the silenced Ministers by a Conformist c. 5. My Apologie for the Nonformists Preaching Written by me and Comming out with this ERRATA IN the Preface Sect. 17. line 13. read pleaded for l. 17. after Clergie and People add of â—â—â—â—â—iâ—â—â—sâ— So Evident is the right of Synods Clergie and People AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS c. CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformists especially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord about the true Nature of Schism and who is the Schismatick written by him at age in his most owned books and not in youth in his Irenicon I stand to all my words against Schism which he hath cited and so I doubt not but he stands to these following of his DIscourse of Idolatry of Rome p. 7. Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of destroys Salvation The Papists consent p. 43. I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest that hath the best groundâ— and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 194. 195. 1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to distruction For this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more But this is a principle of Natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of it or to contradict the end and designe of it 2. The Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church Pag. 216. 217. 1. It is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contâ—ine in them the unquestionable will of that God whom we are bound to serve and it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfyed in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easly a matter for men to mistake in the waies they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should enterpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God or do they think
that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For 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 And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
the Scriptures there must be an acknowledgment of them as the indispensable rule of faith and manners which is that these books are the great Charter of the Christian society according to which it must be governed These things being premised as the foundation in general of Christian society we shall the better understand how far the obligation to communion in it doth extend For which it must be considered that the grounds of continuance in communion must be suitable and proportionable to the first reason of entring into it No man being obliged by virtue of his being in a society to agree in any thing that tends to the apparent ruin of that society But he is obliged to the contrary from the general grounds of his first admission into it His primary obligation being to preserve the honour and interest of it and to joyn in acts of it so far as they tend to it Now the main end of the Christian society being the promotion of Gods honour and Salvation of mens Souls the primary obligation of men entring into it is the advancement of these ends to joyn in all acts of it so far as they tend to these ends but if any thing come to be required directly repugnant to these ends those men of whom such things are required are bound not to communicate in those lesser societies where such things are imposed but to preserve their communion with the Catholick societie of Christians Pag. 291. Setting then aside the Catholick society of Christians we come to enquire how far men are bound to communicate with any less society how extensive soever it may pretend it's communion to be 1. There is no society of Christians of any one communion but may impose some things to be beleived or practised which may be repugnant to the general Foundation of Christian society Pag. 292. 2. There being a possibility acknowledged that particular Churches may require unreasonable conditions of communion the obligation to communion cannot be absolute and indispensable but only so far as nothing is required destructive to the ends of Christian Society Otherwise men would be bound to destroy that which they beleive and to do the most unjust and unreasonable things But the greater difficulty lies in knowing when such things are required and who must be the Judge in that case to which I answer 3. Nothing can be more unreasonable than that the society imposing such conditions of communion should be judge whether those conditions be just and equitable or no. If the question were only in matters of peace conveniency and order the judgment of the society ought to over-rule the judgments of particular persons but in such cases where great bodies of Christians judge such things required to be unlawful conditions of communion what Justice or reason is there that the party accused should fit Judge in her own cause 4. Where there is sufficient evidence from Scripture reason and tradition that such things which are imposed are unreasonable conditions of Christian Communion the not communicating with that Society which requires these things cannot incur the guilt of Schism which necessarily follows from the precedent grounds because none can be obliged to Communion in such cases and therefore the not communicating is no culpable separation Pag. 324. His Lordship delivers his sense clearly and fully in these Words 'T is too true indeed that there is a miserable rent in the Church and I make no question but the best men do most bemoan it nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said or thought that the Protestants made this rent The Cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we call'd for truth and redress of abuses For a Schism must needs be theirs whose the cause of it is The Wo runs full out of the mouth of Christ ever against him that gives the offence not against him that takes it ever Page 325. I do say it now and most true it is That it was ill done of those who e're they were who first made the Separation But then A. C. must not understand me of actual only but of causal Separation For as I said before the Schism is theirs whose the cause of it is and he makes the Separation that gives the first just cause of it not he that makes an actual Separation upon a just Cause preceding And this is so evident a Truth that A. C. cannot deny it for he says it is most true That the Reader may clearly understand the full State of this Controversie concerning Schism the upshot of which is that it is agreed between both parties that all Separation from Communion with a Church doth not involve in it the guilt of Schism but only such a Separation as hath no sufficient cause or ground for it Page 131. There can be no Separation from the whole Church but in such things wherein the unity of the whole Church lies for Separation is a violation of some Union Now when men separate from the errors of all particular Churches they do not separate from the whose because those things which one separates from those particular Churches for are not such as make all them put together to be the whole or Catholick Church This must be somewhat further explained There are two things considerable in all particular Churches those things which belong to it as a Church and those things which belong to it as a particular Church Those things which belong to it as a Church are the common ligaments or grounds of Union between all particular Churches which taken together make up the Catholick Church Those things which belong to it as a particular Church are such as it may retain the essence of a Church without Now I say whosoever separates from any particular Church much more from all for such things without which that can be no Church separates from the Communion of the Catholick Church but he that separates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their being is onely separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick And therefore supposing that all perticular Churches have some errors and corruptions in them though I should separate from them all I do not separate from the Communion of the whole Church unless it be for something without which those could be no Churches An evidence of which is that by my declaring the grounds of my separation to be such Errours and corruptions which are crept into the Communion of such Churches and imposed on me in order to it I withal declare my readiness to joyn with them again if those errours 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 which is therefore more properly a separation from the errors than the Communion of such a
far from being Schism that being cast our 〈◊〉 that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours 〈◊〉 the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humor came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church For not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church And in such Cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism Page 366. The truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one Age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation more necessary so far is it from making it more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves what reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an Argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too Page 540. Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them Page 541. Saint Augustine saith not only in that place but in very many others that Saint Peter did sustain the Person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven That he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter non habent illustrem intellectum nisi eum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestasse personam have no clear sense but â—hen they are referred to the Church whose person he did 〈◊〉 Pag. 542 He means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that Saint Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church It primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church Pag. 544. His Lordship saith your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no body collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more powerto the representing body of it than a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise than with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing body had failed in trust or truth And this power no body collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it His Lordship saith that the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning faith it hath not by an immediate institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example CHAP. II. Some Animadversions on his Preface § 1. THE impartial searchers after truth have hitherto thought that a strict method at least agreeable to natural Logick is more effectual than confusion or wordy popular haranges And that the controversie should be very cleerly stated before it can be profitably argued And therefore that first all ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed that men may not mean several things and not understand each other and to Define and distinguish where it is needful and then Affirm or deny and then effectualy prove But why this worthy person doth far otherwise with us both before and now it is more his part than mine to give the reason I dare not say he cannot Nor I dare not say he can but will not but all that I can say is that he doth not and I know not why § 2. The Preface of his Book called Unreasonableness c. Is so much answered already by Mr. Lob that I will not lose time by doing much to the same again And there is a posthumous book of Dr. Worsleys called The third part of naked Truth which hath strenuously handled the same chief matter for Scripture Sufficiency against unnecessary Impositions It being supposed though not there expressed 1. That he speaketh not against the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which must be determined one way or other As Time Place Utensils Translationwords Metres tunes c. 2. And that a man that intollerably breakes Gods Laws by Blasphemy Treason Murder Fornication c. is not to be tollerated because he erroniously thinks he keepeth them § 3. His sad saying that there is no improbability that the Jesuites should be the first setters up of the way in England which he calls the Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer Mr. Lob hath opened as it deserveth in part but to say all that it deserveth would seem so harsh that I have reason to think that it would but more offend than profit him § 4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth The cause of his impatience I leave to himself But that it is much within him I must conjecture when in his defence of Bishop Laud I read him saying to the Papists To speak mildly it is a gross untruth And yet wen I speak not so plainly to him and I think never more sharply he accounts it a continued Passion Rage Railing Intollerable indiscretion c. Do I give him harder words than these Yet I profess I smart not by them I take them for very tollerable words in comparison of his miscarriges in the cause in hand Several sorts of men I have found think other men speak in passion 1. Those that hear and read with passion They think that which angers them came from anger 2. Those that are too high to be dealt with on even terms and think the plain speech which agreeth to others is a contempt of such as them 3. Those that commit miscarriages so gross and defend causes so bad as have no names but what are disgraceful and then take all that is said to anatomatize their cause and errours to be said against themselves
without an imposed form in the Pulpit and yet they never durst forbid it to this day so I know who shewed his desire of a new Book of Homilies of his own making its like to have been imposed instead of preaching and of the old ones on those that had not special license to preach But interest ruleth the world They durst not so far disgrace their Clergy as to make them meer Readers nor lose the advantage of talking out of the Pulpit for their Cause where none must contradict them Mr. Lob hath ask'd you already whether our Spiritual Prayer as you call it or your Liturgy and Bishop Cousins and Dr Taylors Prayer-books c. be liker to the Popish Mass book and many other Offices and Devotions Indeed Mr. Austins hath so much gravity as excepting his excursions to Saints c. it may compare with many of yours And for that sort of spiritual Devotion in which they flie too high I have found more of it in the Friers Franciscans Benedictines c. such as Barbanson Benedictus de Benedictis c. than in the Jesuits And the Oratoriana Phil. Nerius Baronius and the rest and of their sober or Religious men as Sales Mr. Roâ—ti c. and of old John Gerson Kempis c. have more of spirituality than the Jesuits But enough of this § 6. As to the rest of his Prefatory discourse of the Advantages of Popery 1. We doubt not but the Papists play their game among all Parties as far as they are able and put on divers sorts of Vizors But doth he that is a Historian not know that all over the world their cheif design is upon the Rulers and Leaders and they Cry Fight neither against great or small but to win one Court Card signifieth more than many others 2. Doth he think the Papists take the Conformists or the Nonconformists to be nearer to them and less against them 3. Did the Papists think Bishop Lauds reconciling design described by Doctor Heylin entertained by Sancta Clara Leander c. or the Parliaments fears of his introducing Popery in those times to be more against them 4. Are they liker to help in Popery that are so apt to be over-averse to any thing that favours of it in Doctrine Discipline and Worship and account the Pope Antichrist Or they that hold as followeth 1. As Grotius That a Papist is but one that flatters the Popes as if all were just that they say and do and so there are few Papists I hope in the World 2. That the Church of Rome is sound in Faith 3. And so are all the General Councils even Trent 4. That Rome is the Mistress of all Churches or as Bishop Bromhal that for Concord we must all obey the Pope as Patriarch of the West and Principium Unitatis Catholicae ruling according to the old Canons a Foreign Jurisdiction and all those pass for Schismaticks that refuse it of which more after 5. That the validity of our Ministry must be proved by the derivation of it from the uninterrupted succession of the Roman Ordainers and Church 6. That the Church of Rome by that succession is a true though faulty Church of Christ but so are none of the Reformed Churches which have not Bishops or have them not by such uninterrupted succession 7. That the only way of the Concord of Churches and all Christians is saith Bishop Gunning to obey the governing part of the Church Universal which 〈◊〉 Collegium Pastorum all the Bishops of the universal Church in one Regent Colledge governing all the Christian World per literas formatas 8. That its safer and better for the Protestants in France to be of the French Church of Papists than to continue without Bishops as they are 9. That we should come as near the Papists as the Greek Church doth or as both Greek and Latin did at the rupture of the two Churches or as in Greg. 1st daies say others or as in Char. Mag. daies say others receiving say some the first six General Councils say others the first 8. 10. That we must amend the Oath of Supremacy for the Papists as Thorndick saith and so many Doctrines as he intimateth 11. That its desireable that the Papists had continued in our Churches as in the begining of Queen Eliz. And if they come as Church Papists do should be received in our Communion 12. That if the Pope have not as some hold a right of such Primacy as belongs to Saint Peters successour at least His Primacy is a very prudent humane constitution 1. That there may be a Common Father to care for all the Church 2. And one to be a Head of Unity and order 3. And one to call General Councils 4. And one to rule between when there are no such Councils which are rare 5. And one to give power to Patriarcks and Arch-Bishops who else will have none over them to authorize or Govern them 6. And one to decide controversies when Countries Churches and Arch-Bishops disagree 7. And one to send out Preachers among Heathens Infidels and Hereticks all over the world 8. And one boldly to reprove admonish and if need be excommunicate Kings which their own subjects dare not do I do not mean that all these things or any of them are the Doctrine of the Church of England or held by all or most that conforme But if some of it have been published by the Chief Prelates and some by their chief defenders and some in conference with us by Clergy men I only ask whether all this please not and advantage not the Papists more than Nonconformists any way do And whether Arch-Bishop Usher and his Successor Arch-Bishop Bromhal Bishop Downam and his Successour Bishop Taylor differed not as much as you and I do And whether the multitude of Parish Priest that were Papists in Queen Elizabeths daies and Bishop Godfrey Goodman a Papists Bishop of Gloucester with all the rest mentioned by Prin Rushworth Burnet c. tell us not that the Papists had a hopeful game to play among the Bishops and Clergy of the Church § 7. As to his note out of Mr. Jo. Humpheries book disclaiming Cruelty to Papists it s known Mr. Humphery is a man of latitude and universal Charity and tyeth himself to no party or any mens opinions He openly professeth his hope of the Salvation of many Heathens and I so little fear the noise of the censorious that even now while the Plot doth render them most odious I freely say 1. That I would have Papists used like men and no worse than our own defence requireth 2 That I would have no man pat to death for being a Priest 3. That I would have no writ de excommunicato capiendo or any Law compel them to our Communion and Sacraments For I would not give it them if I knew them if they came § 8. As to his Accusation of my first Plea for Peace he hath it after and it is after answered
And as to his Accusation of my book for Concord I answer 1. Is it no Ministers work in a contending world to tell and prove what are Christs ordained termes of Christian Concord but his that is Christs plenipotentiary on Earth and were to set the termes of Peace and War Is this spoken like a peace maker and a Divine Doth not he pretend also in his way to declare the terms of Concord 2. But no man more heartily agreeth with him in lamenting the state of the Church on earth that when such men as Bishop Gunning Dean Stillingfleet Dr. Saywel c. on one side and such as I and many better men on the other side have so many years studied hard to know Gods will I am certain for my self and I hope it of them with an unseigned desire to find out the truth what ever it cost and I profess as going to God that would he but make me know that Popery silencing Prelacy imprisoning Banishing or ruining all Nonconformists Anabaptists Antinomians Quakers or any that ever I wrote against are in the right I would with greater joy and thankfulness recant and turne to them than I would receive the greatest preferment in the land I say that yet after all this we should so far differ as for one side to be confident that the others way of Concord is the ready way to ruin wickedness and confusion and to come to that boldness to proclaim this to the world alas how doleful a case is this What hope of Christian peace and concord when such excellent sober well studyed men as they quite above the common sort not byassed by honour or preferments or power by Bishopricks Deaneries Masterships plurality or love of any worldly wealth and such as we that study and pray as hard as they to know the truth are yet confident to the height that each others termes of Love and peace are but Sathans way to to destroy them both and introduce as Dr. Saywel saith Conventicles do Heresie Popery Ignorance Prophaneness and Confusion And what we are past doubt that their way will do experience saith more than we may do Oh what shall the poor people do in so great a temptation § 9. But I must pass from his Preface where I have noted 1. That he is yet so peaceable as to propose some sort of abatements for our Concord that the benifit may be sibi suis not reaching our necesseries but much better than nothing 2. That they are so ill agreed that Bishop Gunnings Chaplain writeth against it making the only way of Peace to be by the sword to force all men to full obedience to their Lordships in every thing injoyned not abating an Oath a Subscription a Covenant a Word a Ceremony without Comprehension or limited Toleration 3 And I could wish the Doctor would consent at least that Lords and Parliament men may have the liberty themselves of educating their own Sons so it be in the Christian Reformed Religion and to choose their Tutors and not confine them to Conformists only The Papists are tollerated in choosing Tutors for their Children The King of France hath not yet taken away this liberty from the Protestants Nor the Turks from the Greeks And must you needs take it away from all the Lords Knights Gentlemen Citizens and Free-holders of England Perhaps Beggars will consent if you will keep their Children or do what the Godfathers vow Most Gentlemen that keep Chaplains expect that they teach their Sons at home sometime at least what if a Lord or Knight have such a Chaplain as Hugh Broughton or Ainsworth or as Amesius Blondel Salmatius as Gataker Vines Burges c. must the Law forbid them to read Hebrew Philosophy or Divinity to their Sons I doubt you will scarce get the Parliament hereafter to make such a Law to fetter themselves lest next you would extend your dominion also to their Wives as well as Sons and forbid them marrying any but Conformists Is it not enough to turn us all out of the publick Ministry Methinks you might allow some the Office of a School-master or Houshold Tutor or Chaplain under the Laws of Peace unless the Sword be all that you trust too If it be it is an uncertain thing The minds of Princes are changable and all things in this World are on the Wheel when Peter flieth to the Sword Christ bids him put it up for they that so use it perish by it Hurting many forceth many to hurt you or to desire their own deliverance though by your hurt CHAP. III. The beginning of the Doctors unreasonable Accusations examined His stating of the Case of Separation § 1. THis much instead of an intelligible stating of our Controversie he giveth us Page 2. By separation we mean nothing else but withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and joyning with Separate Congregations for greater purity of worship and better means of Edification And may we be sene by this that we understand the difference 1. Whether by Our Church he meant the Parochial Church and if so whether some or all or the Diocesan Church or the Provincial or the National or all I know not But I know well that some withdraw from some Parish Churches which joyn with others And some think they withdraw not from the Diocesan or Provincial if they communicate with any one Parish Church in the Diocess And some renounce the Diocesan Church which constantly joyn with the Parochial And for the National Church who can tell whether we have Communion with it till we know what they mean by it Indeed in the latter part after the long dispute he condescendeth beyond expectation to explain that term But it s so as plainly to deny that there is any such thing as a Church of England in a Political sense that hath any constitutive Regent part But even there so late he maketh it not possible to us to know whether we be members of the Church or not For he maketh it to be but all the Christians and Churches in the Kingdom joyned by consent exprest by their Representatives in Parliament under the same civil Government and Rules of Religion Doctrine and Worship and Government 1. As it is a Christian Kingdom we are sure that we are members of it 2. As it is all the Churches of the Kingdom consenting to the Scriptures yea and to Articles of Doctrine and all that Christ or his Apostles taught we are sure that we withdraw not from it 3. But if every Chancellor Dean Commissary Surrogate c. Or every forme or word or Ceremonie be essential to their Church we cannot tell who is of it and who not Or really whether any reject not some one forme word or office If every such thing be not essential he never in all the book tels us what is or how to know it or who is of it § 2. And the word withdrawing seemeth to imply former Communion And if so he maketh
I think not invalidate and yet this goeth for no justification of us so is it with others § 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as described by their Cannon that must make us Separatists which is of men that call themselves of another Church But that 's not it Mr. Gouge Mr. Poole Mr. Humphrey and my self and abundance more that never gathered any Church nor called our selves of any other then their own are nevertheless separatists in these mens account § 11. They that remembred what was called Separation in England of old supposed it had these two degrees which made men called Brownists First falsly taking the Parish Ministers and Churches for no true Ministers and Churches of Christ and therefore not to be Communicated with Secondly or in the lower rank falsly taking the faults of the Parish Ministers and Churches to be so great that its a sin to have ordinary Communion with them But they that have still disclaimed both these are Separatists still in our Accusers sence § 12. Some thought that ordinary Communicating in the Parish Churches and pleading for it would prove us no separatists with them But this will not serve as my own and many other mens Experience proveth § 13. I am called after to say more of this The sum of my separation is this First that I take not the Parish Churches to be the only Churches that I must Communicate with and will not confine my Communion to them alone as if they were a sect or All But will also have Communion with Dutch French or Nonconformists 2. I take not the Order Discipline and mode of worship in the Parish Churches nor the Preaching of very many Parsons Vicars and Curates to be the best and most desirable 3. I take those to be no true Political Churches which have no Pastors that have all the Qualifications and Call and Authority which is Essential to the Office and therefore can communicate with them but as with a flock without a Pastor or an Oratory Community or Catechized Company 4. I live peaceably under such Bishops as have many hundred Parishes and no Episcopos Gregis true Bishops and Pastoral Churches under them as they think But I own not their Constitution 5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Associated for mutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prescribeth and in all the Protestant Religion and all that all Christian Churches are agreed in and all that is truly needful to the ends of Christianity But not absolutely in all which their Canons Liturgy c. conttaine Especially their sinful Impositions and their Presumtious Canonical Excommunications of dissenters ipso facto 6. I am one of the Christian Kingdom of England as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command But not for obeying them in sin against God nor for believing all to be Lawful because they command it nor for their taking down Family Government or self Government and discerning private Judgment of the subjects This is my measure of separation § 14. And I think in cases that concern our own and many mens Salvation we should have leave freely to speak for our selves and not be used as we are that must neither be endured to be silent or to speak Let this Dr. open our case to you himself saith he Pref. p. 36. Speaking of my first Plea for Peace As though it had been designed on purpose to represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and orders established among us For there are no less than thiâ—ty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity set down in it and all this done without the 〈…〉 provocation given on oue side And elswhere he saith he shall less regard my aggravations Ans 1. If I do that which you think as bad I would gladly be told of it though false accusations I desire not And impenitence is too soon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees and I had rather be saved from it 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reason and humanity as well as Christianity to decide the case of this Accusation 1. We did in 1660. and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durst for fear of sin and Hell to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Episcopal party 2. When our labour and hopes were frustrate and two thousand of us cast out of the Ministery and afterwards laws made against us as Conventiclers first for our Fining Imprisonment and then Banishment and after besides Imprisonment to pay twenty pound the first Sermon and forty pound the next and so on when after this the Law that banished us from all Cities Corporations c. and places where we lately Preached did most deeply accuse us as the cause I never wrote so much as the reasons of our dissent When by the execution of these Laws we were by Informers and others used as is well known I was still silent My not conforming shewed my dissent but I durst not so much as once tell them why lest it should more exasperate them 3. At last I was often told that the Bishop that first forbad my Preaching and many others after him oft said to Great men Mr. Baxter keeps up a Schism and yet holds all our conformity lawful save renouncing a rebellious Covenant And I yet continued silent 4. At last they wrote against us that we durst not say that any part of Conformity was sin but only inconvenient 5. Then many pulpits and books proclaim that we against our Consciences kept up a Schism for a baffled cause which we had nothing to say for 6. All this while Lords and Commons used to ask us what is it that you would have and what keepeth you from Conformity In private talk but would never allow us to speak for our selves and give the world or Parliament our reasons 7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy cryed out to the Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and as one said set fire to the Fagot and blamed them for not doing it 8. When the King gave us his Licence they were greatly offended as aforesaid 9. At last one great Bishop told me that he would desire the King to constraine us to give our reasons and not keep up a Schism and not tell for what And another greater told me that the King took us to be not sincere that would not give our reasons And all this while I durst not give them as knowing how they would be received 10. When the Bishops kept me from Preaching and gave me leisure I wrote 1. An Apology for our Preaching 2 A Treatise of Episcopacy and divers other such and yet durst not Print them
nor indeed could do it 11. At last after about seventeen or eighteen years silence by such importunity and the Press being more open I ventured first but to write my first Plea for Peace which only nameth matter of Fact and our bare Judgment enumerating the things which we think sin without our Arguments lest it should provoke them more And therein professed that knowing mens different Educations studies interests c. I did not by this accuse the Conformists nor the Law makers but only tell 1. What I thought would be sin in us 2. And how great a sin if we conformed Reader should I have stayed longer the smal Tract of Sacrilegious desertion of the Ministry came out when we were licensed but ventured not to name the matters of our Nonconformity what could we do less I staid till I think half the silenced Ministers were dead Is the call of superiours the Interest of our Ministry and Consciences of so little regard as that I must not tell men that so loud and long had asked what 's the matter Must we neither be silent nor speak And now see here 1. If Dean Stillingfleet be a man to be believed in such accusations All this was done by me without the least provocation on their side wonderful difference Is my naming what I think God forbids me so great a provocation to them and is all this for seventeen years before named not the least provocation to us on their part What shall one think could bring such a man to such a word 2. And that which I profest that I wrote not to accuse them he tells you was as if designed to represent them as a Company of notorious lying Perjured Villains This Collection I feared But how could I avoid it Must not I tell them that urge me what sin I fear least they say you represent us as such 3. See here how they talk of us contrarily as the Barbarians of Paul that now make him a Murderer and anon a God For many years together our Lords and Masters perswaded men that we took Conformity to be no sin save renouncing the Covenant And now how Contrary It s the representation of a Company of notorious lying perjured Villains with thirty tremendous aggravations Repent O England saith Bradford at the stake But who would have thought that Repentance had been so hard a work in a case called so heynous and that to the Preachers of Repentance as it is either to them or to us which ever it be that is found in the guilt CHAP. IV. Of his History of the case of the old Nonconformists § 1. AS to what he saith of the sameness of the former Case and ours I shall tell him the difference after where he more calls me to it And shall shew him so much difference as will discredit this assertion § 2. As to the case of the old Nonconformists 1. It must be premised that we take them not for any of our rule but cleave to Gods word and the example of the Primitive Church looking still at the great ends of order and Government 2. We maintain as well as he that the Chief Nonconformists were against that called Brownism or Separation and wrote more against it than the Conformists did 3. I still profess my self to be of their Judgment in this and have practised accordingly 4. But they were not against such Preaching or any such sort of separation as I have either practised or defended § 3. Here therefore it must be known what the Controversie between them and the separatists was 1. The higher sort of separatists said that the Church of England was no true Church The Nonconformists said it was a true National Church both as a Christian Kingdom and as an Association of Churches and as represented in National Synods were they made one 2. The said Brownists said that the Parish Churches were no true Churches nor to be owned as such nor joyned with The Nonconformists held that they are true Churches that have capable Ministers though faulty 3. The separatists said that the Parish Ministers were no true Ministers because ordained by Diocesans and not chosen by the people c. The Nonconformists said that the capable were true though faulty Ministers owned by the peoples consenting communion and the ordination valid though culpable 4. The separatists said that Ministers and people must gather Churches that are purer and set up better discipline in them whatever Rulers say or do against it or whatever they suffer as far as they are able The Nonconformists said this is to be done where it may be done without doing more hurt than good but else it is no duty but a sin viz. To do it Tumultuously Seditiously or so as by running on the Magistrates sword by improbable attempts to lose their own advantages for doing and getting good and hinder the common parish reformation 5. The Separatists said that no prohibition of the Magistrate will warrant a Minister to forbear the publick work of his office The Nonconformists held that it belongeth to the Magistrate to restrain deceivers and all false Teachers who do more hurt than good and such should obey when they are forbidden to Preach and Administer Sacraments Yea if the Magistrate wrongfully forbid a worthy Minister to Preach for order he is bound to obey unless the need of the Church and Souls and the probable benefit plainly weigh down that matter of order and make the Magistrates prohibition invalid as being against the common good and the ends of the Ministry and so against Christ 6. The semi-separatists Robinsons party after held that though the Parish Churches may be called true Churches as a Leper is a true man and it may be lawful to hear a Sermon in them yet the Common-prayer is so bad and the people and Ministers so bad and discipline so cast out that it is unlawful to joyn with them in Common-prayer or Sacrament or to become setled members of them but all must attempt though in Forreign Countreys that are able to set up purer worship and discipline The Nonconformists held that those that can have better without more hurt than good should cheose it But they that cannot may joyn in member-ship Common-prayer and Sacrament with such Parish Churches as will admit them without their own actual sin and consenting to their faults § 4. I shall now give you so full proof that the Nonconformists were for more which the Doctor calleth Separation than my Preaching or practice ever reached to as I shall tell the Reader what credit this Doctors history deserveth and what inhumane usuage the Nonconformists have from that sort of men § 5. Anno 1593. Was printed against them Bishop Bancroft's book called Dangerous Positions and Proceedings c. Or English Scotizing for Discipline by force c. In the first book he maketh their Reformations so odious as that Page 30. He saith that in Scotland it hath wrought more mischief in Thirty years
and more than all the Conformists did And yet they were not more against it than Bishop Bilson who saith If the Magistrate forbid us our work we must go on and patiently suffer Mr. Hildersham was called Malleus Schismaticorum and yet he and I are Schismaticks with these men Mr. John Pagets Arrow against separation Mr. Bradshaw Mr. Gifford Mr. Ball c. have said enough But he that knoweth their controversie knoweth that it was none of the question whether it be lawful to Preach when the Magistrate forbids it or whether our Parish Churches and Diocesan be to be prefered before more Reformed Churches when they may be had But whether 1. The Parish Churches be no true Churches 2. Or such as it is unlawful to communicate with occasionally 3. Or constantly when no better can be had without greater hurt than benefit 4. Whether it be a duty to gather Churches or Preach publickly when it is like to do more hurt than good by the Magistrates opposition 5. Whether we should not quietly bear with that in a Church which we cannot reforme while no sin is put on us and the Communion of it is no worse than that of our Parish Churches In all these they were against the separatists and so am I. 6. Yea they pleaded the duty of obeying the Magistrate by forbearing to Preach when their Preaching was not necessary And so do I. § 10. One would think they that take Homilies for Sermon◠should consess that the Nonconformsts writing against the prohibition of the Law was a Preaching or much more as it is more publick And did the Nonconformists write when forbidden so much as Cartwright Parker Sandford Fenner Gilby Ames and aboundance more have done yea and writ against Diocesanes and Conformity as these and Bradshaw Nichols Brightman Bayne Travers and aboundance more have even many hundreds as the Millinary Petition and the Country Complaints c. shew and yet did these men every one of them take it for sin to Preach because it was disobedience But nothing will convince some men § 11. But I appeal to the reason and humanity of mankind into what hands the silenced and persecuted Ministers are fallen Is it humane first to charge them with resisting the Laws by Preaching gathering Churches and administring Sacraments and making Canons and setting up new Discipline and to publish this to the land and world by such Authority as Arch Bishop Bancrofts Doctor Heylins c. till it is become their Common Charge to render them suspected and odious and till this be taken for undoubted truth And yet when it may serve for the silencing of us to maintain it with Dr. St. as that which he is certain of that the old Nonconfor mists were against such Preaching and assembling At this rate we have been hitherto accused and confuted Yea upon the foresaid Accusations their Canons were formed against the Nonconformists forbidding their Assembling Preaching calling themselves a distinct Church and a great deal more such and yet now the men that conform to these Canons are certain that they were made upon safe suppositions and not one of the Nonconformists were so guilty But doth not the Doctor thus grievously accuse the Church which he would defend Were they such men 1. that would so falsly accuse the Innocent 2. and use them so cruelly on such false accusations many of them dying in Prisons and many lay there long c. 3. and to form Canons on such false suppositions § 12. And I do not think I shall prevail with him to tell me whether he that thinks their Case and ours was so much the same doth verily believe 1. That if they had been in the Plague at London and seen the forsaken people crowding for instruction to prepare for death the Nonconformists such as Bradshaw Gifford Hildersham Greenham c. would have refused to Preach to them 2. And if the next year they had seen the Churches burnt and the City in ruins and few Parish Ministers officiate they would have thought i◠a sin to Preach to the desolate City to assemble them to worship God and would have let them under so dreadful judgements live and dye like prophane Atheists 3. And if shortly after the King had Licensed them to assemble and Preach would they have refused it as a sin 4. And if the Prelates had prevailed by such a Parliament against the Kings License and he still had shewed the clemencie of his mind by his conivence and Magistrates were loth to execute the rigorous Laws and people would not inform and the informers repented and thousands more called to the Nonconformists for help than did there when Popery stuck still in the peoples hearts would they have thought all this no alteration of the Case to judge whether their Preaching would do good or hurt § 13. He tells us of the fewness of Nonconformists in King Edward's days And it is a wonder that so many in so short a time went so far in the Reformation as they did But so fast were they then in progress that even the Reformation of Church Laws then by the Commissioners agreed on was in many things so much better than our Canons as could we now but obtain the same would go far to heal us Let me instance in some and anticipate by it my answer to his after discourse against Parish Discipline 1. Cap. 18. de Heres They determine of the Salvation of the unbaptized Infants of believers the contempt only being damning 2. They define the Church visible Cap 22 to be the Congregation of all believers in which the Sacred Scripture is sincerely taught and the Sacraments at least in the necessary parts administred according to Christs institution But your Canons deny all such here to be true Churches save theirs as settled by Law 3. De Sacram. Cap 5. None to be admitted to the Sacrament till in the Church he have professed his faith And de Div. Off. Cap. 7 They that will receive the Communion must the day before come to the Minister that he may have time to excusse their Consciences and deal with them if they have done any thing ungodly or superstitionsly in which the Church is offended and also may try their faith that so he may either correct their ignorance or terrifie their Contumely or confirm their doubting For none ought to be admitted to the Holy table of the Lord that hath not a perfect belief The words need a gentle exposition but we have no power now to try mens knowledge or belief thus 4. Cap. 10. After evening prayers the Parish Minister Deason and Elders with the people shall call those that have been publickly perverse and scandalous to confess their sins and to be publickly corrected that the Church may be conformed by their wholesome correction And the Minister and Deacon with some Elders shall consult how the rest that are of vitious lives may first by brotherly love according to Christs prescript in the
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
mind by citing four of their Books against Brownists and were four or forty times four all But Mr. Rathbands is said to be the Nonconformists Doth he believe that he meant that all or the twentieth part of the Nonconformists wrote or subscribed it One of the Names to it is Mr. Simeon Ash my intimate dear friend whose judgment in these matters was the same with mine whom I was with even in his sickness almost to the last hour of his life and was buryed Aug. 23. 1662. the day before the Law had else silenced him and he was to me a better Expositor of his own mind than the Dr. can be He was so much for going on to preach that his Motto in his Funeral Ring was I am not ashamed of the Gospel of Christ I yet keep my Ring and can shew it you And as to old Mr. Langley another of them I heard him my self preach in Albriton Church in Shropshire a Thanksgiving Sermon for the hopes of deliverance from the silencing Bishops when the Law forbad him And for old Mr. Slater I heard him preach at Trinity Church in Coventry when the Law forbad him And did they not understand their own Writings better than the Dr. doth Sect. 23. And I would I knew how to prevail with him to tell me whether the Law and Canon did not forbid all the Ministers in England to worship God according to the Directory and neglect the Common Prayer Book which yet almost all did for many years in the times of usurpation And yet of nine thousand or more of these seven thousand since conformed to the Church of England and they say that this Dr. is one of them If mere disobedience then be the sin all these lived so long in sin and he with others Sect. 24. But all that can be gathered out of the four Books â—â—â—ed and such others is but this which is our judgment 1. That Churches and Pastors are under the Kings Government as well as other Subjects 2. That it belongeth to him to punish them for evil doing and encourage them in doing well 3. That as to this his own execution he is the publick Judge whether they do well or ill 4. That if he justly forbid any to preach or assemble he must be obeyed 5. And if he mistake in particular cases not destroying the ends of his Government the common good he must not be resisted nor in such a manner disobeyed as tendeth more to the common hurt than his mistake doth nor disabled to Govern by their dishonouring him much less by Rebellion or Confusion 6. Nor are men bound to cast away their great advantages for Gods service which they then had on pretence of doing better when by accident it would do more hurt than good nor as Bradshaw saith to run on the Sword or oppose Sword to Sword or raise Sedition and ruin themselves in vain Their advantages were many 1. Lawful Communion in the Parish Churches 2. Most of them either constantly or by sits had publick Churches or Chappels to preach in and were still in hope 3. The Magistrate protected them and the Reformation 4. They hoped for a progress of it whereas had they openly done as the Brownists they had endangered the Reformation by the exasperation and ruined themselves and lost most of their labour So that it is plain that preaching in that imprudent manner which is like to do more harm than good they took to be a double sin as hurtful and as disobedience for obedience is due in such a case But in case the manner and circumstances be such as that these evils are not consequent but more good than hurt to be expected they thought the bare breach of the Law no sin Sect. 25. Which I yet further prove 1. Because it s agreed by all that Governing Order is a medium for the thing ordered and never obligeth when it overthroweth the end power being given to Edification and not to Destruction None have power to forbid the necessary preaching of the Gospel and probably to damn Souls 2. Because else the Nonconformists should be more against preaching when forbidden than the Conformists who say as Bishop Bilson We must go on with our work suffer and as Bishop Andrews Tortur Torti Cohibeat Regem Diaconus c. 3. Yea the Papists who on pretence of Obedience are tyrannical yet mostly agree as I have elsewhere proved that humane Laws bind not beyond the case of scandal when they are against the common good And a Toletane Council decreed that their Constitutions should not be taken to bind ad pâ—câ—atum to hazard Souls but only ad poenam 4. As I have said their own practice fully expounded their words who constantly broke the Law and Canon in preaching in Houses and in Chappels without or contrary to the Liturgy or a part of it So did Mr. Ball at Whitemore Mr. Hind at Banbury Mr. Geree and Mr. Fox at Tewksbury John Rogers at Dedham Mr. Taylor Mr. Harvy Mr. Bourne at Manchester Mr. Gee Mr. Johnson Mr. Hancock Mr. Barlow Mr. Broxholme Mr. Cooper and abundance more besides those mentioned before And now I leave it to the Dr.'s further thoughts whether he spake truly of the sence of All the Nonconformists and have proved what he undertook To abuse the Magistrate or do his part for publick Reformation they were against and so are we Sect. 26. As to his question Was there less necessity then or now I answer 1. There was then more necessity as there is of you or me in America where we cannot preach the people lately Papists desired not their helps nor scrupled hearing others as many thousands do now 2. There was necessity then and so there is now but opportunity must joyn with necessity to oblige which they had more than we by connivence in Chappels where was necessity and they had less than we in other places Sect. 27. As to the Answers of Mr. Sprint on my knowledge the usual answer was That evil must not be done that we may have leave to do good and that if others hinder me because I will not sin it is not my omission of any duty yet the disparity of the Apostles case and ours may be mentioned to shew the difference of obligations Positive Precepts bind not ad semper but Negatives do and it s too gross a shift to turn a Negative to a Positive and then pretend that the comparison is between two duties preaching is a duty when we can do it but not when we cannot do it unless we will swear subscribe profess or practise a forbidden thing Sect. 28. I conjecture that to what I have proved of the practice of the Nonconformists it will be said that Their preaching in peculiar places Chappels or Churches though in a manner against Law and Canon was but a partial joyning with the Church of England and not a separation and the connivence of the Bishops was a kind of Toleration Answ 1. And
are in all places of this Realm almost neglected the offender either nothing or little rebuked and sith the transgressors have no colour of conscience it is sin and shame to proceed against us first having also reasonable defence of our doings Charity my Lords would first have taught us Equity would first have spared us brotherliness would have warned us pity would have pardoned us if we had been found trespassers God is my witness who is the beholder of all faith I think of your Lordships honourably esteeming you as brethren reverencing you as Lords and Masters of the Congregation alas why have not you some good opinion of us why do you trust known Adversaries and mistrust your Brethren We confess one faith of Jesus we preach one doctrine we acknowledg one Ruler upon earth in all things saving in this we are of your judgment shall we be used thus for a Surplice shall brethren persecute brethren for a forked Cap devised singularity of him that is our enemy Now shall we fight for the Popes coat his head and body being banished shall the controversie so fall out in conclusion that for lack of necessary furniture as it is esteemed labourers shall lack wages Churches preaching shall we not teach shall we not exercise our Talents as God hath commanded us because we will not wear that which our enemies have desired and that by the appointment of Friends Oh that ever I saw this day that our Adversaries should laugh to see brethren fall together by the ears Oh that Ephraim should thus eat up Manasses Manasses Ephraim My Lords before this take place consider the cause of the Church the Crests and triumphs of Antichrist the laughter of Satan the sorrow and sighs of a number the misery and sequel of the Tragedy I write with zeal without proof of my matter at this time present but not without knowledge of it nor without grief of mind God move your Spirit at this present to fight against Carnem Circumcisionem immo Concisionem against Literam Legem which principally is now regarded and rewarded Speak I humbly beseech you to the Queens Majesty to the Chancellor and to Mr. Secretary and the rest that those proceedings may sleep that England may understand your zealous mind toward the worship of God your love toward the poor welwillers your hate toward the professed enemies your unity in true conformity the other neither be needful now neither exacted in any good age So shall the little Flock be bound to you so shall the great Shepherd be good to you An ANSWER to the false ACCUSATIONS and REASONINGS of the Dr.'s SECOND PART HEre the Dr. begins with the description of their principles whom he accuseth I am one of them And the first sort are those that hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant viz. at some times to be present and in some part of our worship and on particular occasion to partake of some acts of Communion with us but they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these though at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church The second sort are `` Such as hold any Communion with our Church unlawful And he pretends to proceed with all possible clearness Answ I am sorry if more clearness and truth is become impossible to him He taketh not me to be one of the second sort and therefore describeth me as of the first It s no presumption to say that I know my own mind and practice better than he doth though he would seem to know the old Nonconformists minds better than they did themselves Sect. 2. The matter of fact must first be notified 1. I ever distinguished the National Diocesan Parochial and Segregate Churches And the National as supposed organized or an Ecclesiastically political Society from the National as a Christian Kingdom and as an agreeing Association of Churches without any Governor of the whole Single or Aristocratical And I distinguished Diocesans that are as Arch-Bishops over lower Bishops and those that are like ours infimae speciei and I distinguished Parish Churches that have true Pastors from those that have none but uncapable men through insufficiency heresie malignity or as usurpers are not truly called 2. Accordingly I concluded 1. That the Parish Churches in England that have true Pastors are true political governed Churches 2. That though some would make them none by denying to the Pastors an essential part of their office and make the Bishop the sole Pastor and the rest but his Curates and the Parishes no Churches as having no Bishop but to be only as Chappels part of the lowest governed Church Diocesan and so give up the cause to the Brownists called Separatists yet truly such Parishes are true political Churches because the ordainer being but the investing Minister the office is not essentiated as he willeth or saith but as God the Instituter willeth and saith As the power of the Husband over the Wife is not what please the Priest that marryeth them but what pleaseth God who giveth it by his Law and as the Lord Mayor's power is not what please the Recorder or he that giveth him his Oath or Insignia but what the Kings Charter giveth and the Kings power is not what he will that Crowneth him and giveth him his Oath but what he hath right to by the constitution of the Kingdom so that the truth of the Parish Churches is soundly maintained by the Nonconformists and overthrown by many of the Diocesans But if the Parish Minister himself consent not to the essentials of his own office his Ministry may be valid to others while he is in the place but he is himself no true Pastor 3. All Parishes are no true governed Churches whose Ministers want any thing essential to a Pastor nor must be owned as such if known 4. But for the peoples sake they are true Churches secundum quid or equivocally as a company of Christians may be so called that have no Pastor and as such may be so far communicated with 5. I never spake against a Diocesan or Arch-Bishop that hath Parish Churches and true Pastors or Bishops under him and taketh on him no more than the Apostles did excepting their work properly Apostolical viz. by the Word and not the Sword to oversee and instruct inferior Pastors 6. When the Diocesans put down all lower Churches and true Pastors I own not that doing nor them in that form but I separate from them no further than they do from Christ 7. When they are but as good Arch-Bishops taking care of many Churches whether their Diocess shall be called a Church as such is but lis de nomine I find not that any Apostle as such was the constitutive Head of a Diocesan or Provincial Church or made any such above particular Churches
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
your sight How will you escape being judged no rightful Possessor of your Deanry or Prebend or the King's Chaplains place or the Parish Church of St. Andrews I know not how And yet if an Usurper accuse you here and say e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours must not the people judge which of you they will take for the Usurper and which they will joyn with and obey In the times of Usurpation many of the people judged the Bishops to be none of their Pastors nor the ejected Ministers must not the rest therefore judge that they were Where Usurpers deny the King 's Right ought not the people to judge him to have right because they may err and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Usurpers What Landlord may not the Tenants deny What Master the Servants What Husband the Wife But must they not therefore be discerning Judges who is their Landlord Master Husband What Schoolmaster may not unlearned men miscensure What Physician may they not vilisie And yet they shall judge and choose for themselves and speed accordingly who can help it deny men a judgment of discretion to guide their own choice and actions and you contradict mankind and deny men to be men What in the world is more abused than Reason and Freewill and yet men must act by Reason and Freewil It 's unworthy a Divine to cry out against a thing for such unavoidable Inconveniences as humane darkness and badness do necessitate and to swallow Camels on the other side and take no notice of the mischiess thereof nor once to tell us how to escape both Sect. 25. He instanceth in mens censure of me for the Doctrine of Justification and asketh Are men bound to separate from me Answ One would think by many such words that the Doctor did seriously believe that I had 〈◊〉 that all men are bound to follow an 〈◊〉 Judgment and to theyâ—alâ—ly â—alâ—ly judge they ought If he think not that I said so I would not name his fault lest I more offend him If he think I said so I had hoped weaker Readers could have better understood me When I read in the Books of some Conformists yet living whom I much honour that to obey Conscience though it err is to obey God I took it for my duty oft and copiously especially in my Christ Direct to open that case and to prove that Conscience is no Law-maker but only a discerner of Gods Law and that an erring Conscience involveth a man in sin whether he followeth it or not because God changeth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it But yet there are some cases in which it is a farr greater sin to go against Conscience though it err than with it The Dr. dare deny none of this And doth ill if he would perswade men that I deny it and that God makes it mens duty to do ill whenever they judge it good or forsake good when they judge it evil Sect. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that I insinuate that the whole Body of the Church is guilty of great Faults Conformity being a scandalous thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations And no wonder if men so judging prefer others c. Answ Again and again I say 1. This is unrighteous dealing To impose all those things on us To cast us out of the Ministry and Churches for not obeying To Fine and imprison us and accuse us as Schismaticks and Seditions To write and preach for the execution of the Laws against us to our Ruine To aggravate our Crime because we tell them not our Reasons To call us to tell them what we stick at To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reasons To declare in Press and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schism and have nothing to say for it To continue all this when we have been silent seventeen years as fearing that they could not bear it And after all this when we disavowed any Accusation of them and only told them what we feared our selves to come upon us with this charge of deep accusing their Conformity is injustice if there be any in the World Either it is sin or no sin which we fear If none why are we not confuted or invited yet to give our proofs If sin who should be most offended To be yet plainer with you had the case been in the times of the old Prophets and Priests I question whether to let such a Kingdom alone so long in that which we judge to be so great sins would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers And I profess that my conscience is more in doubt whether my so long forbearance was not my sin than whether saying at last what I did was sin And I had nothing to satisfie it but the men that I ought to judge wiser than my self perswaded me that it would have done more hurt than good and caused but our further rending And I think the Conformists should have been desirous to help them to try whether it were sin or not and to have been thankful for helping to save them from it if it proved such But though hence I extenuate the too great withdrawings of some men against their too deep accusations he knoweth that notwithstanding all these aggravations I neither justified nor practised proper Separation Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers viz 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers at least to the people that consent not But Law and Usurpation are contrary Answ 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper though some odd persons consent not He is the Churches Pastor though not the refusers 2. I never said that any that had the Law for them were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers many of them have the Churches after-consent though not their Election Yea I often said 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches it 's an unsatisfactory course to me to leave it unanswered and suppose himself in the right Not only the first 300 years but even under Constantius Valens Theodosius Junior Zeno Basiliscus Anastatius Philippicus Justinian c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors and other Bishops Seates the Emperors seldom meddled with as to the choice Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostomes Joannites in his imperial City were of another mind
King be of any I know not Sect. 37. But p. 152. he comes upon me why I thought it not my duty all this while to Baptize Administer the Sacrament was I not solemnly bound by Ordination to one as well as the other Presbyters of old were rarely allowed to preach Ans 1. You tell the World what measure we must expect from such as you If we had all forborn any Church gatherings and Pastoral undertaking of Flocks and both Sacraments c. and only preached as loth to offend you more than needs our accusations had but been the greater which incourageth your more ingenious Dissenters to do what they also are accused of 2. Do you not know our Reasons They are these 1. Because we suppose there is a greater want of our preaching than of our administring Sacraments And we would obey the 〈…〉 in all things lawful and go from you and offend you no further than 〈…〉 will justifie us 2. Because a Ministers Relation to the Church 〈…〉 and to the world ceaseth not when his relation to a Parish Church may cease And we have not the same obligations to give the Sacrament to all the Christians or World where we preach as we have in a Parish Charge Paul thanketh God that he baptized not many Corinthians because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel nor is the terrible charge 2 Tim. 4. 12. equal as to both 3. Our Ordination bound us to preach and administer Sacraments when we are thereto lawfully called And we were so called to one when we were not to the other nor were all of us so called alike But when we know that this way doth as much offend you we may go further in due time Aud do you in one part of your Book blame us for going further than the old Nonconformists as you thought and in the second thus accuse us for not going further Sect. 38. He is again at his talk of only occasional Communion And had his mistake no Occasion yes he that readeth my Books may see what that is 1. When I have said that some Parishes having not capable or called Pastors I take to be no true Political Churches but yet can communicate with such as Oratories or Chappels 2. That some true Churches I communicate with in transitu or occasionally as strangers whose Discipline and Ministers Calling I am not bound to take account of 3. I tell those that withdraw too far and take some true Churches for none that were it so they might occasionally join with them as Oratories 4. And those that dare not commit their Souls to the Pastoral Conduct of some weak and bad men that yet they may occasionally communicate with them upon great and urgent Reasons And here he gathereth his oft repeated untrue Reports Sect. 39. p. 156. He grants there is no Separation where there is no Obligation And he will prove us obliged to constant Communion with them 1. Because we must use all lawful means for Peace and Unity Ans 1. We are ready to prove that our Conformity nor our forbearing to preach the Gospel are no lawful means 2. Can you as well prove 1. That it is not lawful for you to joyn with us 2. And to forbear silencing excommunicating fining and imprisoning us Was it no lawful means for Peace and Unity to have forborn imposing all the Covenants Professions Subscriptions Oaths and Practises of what you call indifferent and we think sunful 3. And is it not lawful for Parents to enter their own Children at Baptism in Covenant with God 4. Is it unlawful to Christen such as scruple your use of the Cross 5. Or to receive those to Communion that scruple your Gesture 6. 〈…〉 forbear Canonical Excommunicating all professed Nonconformiâ—… Land 7. Or to let Lords and Gentlemen choose any Nonconfoâ—… to be Tutors to their Children whilst the Papists may send theirs to Doway St. Omers c. He saith he is perswaded it is one of the provoking sins of the Nonconformists that they have been so backward to do what they were convinced they might with a good conscience Ans Woe to us if we be not willing to know our sins But 1. If you will tell me of any one lawful thing that I have omitted that tended to Peace I will thank you 2. An indifferent thing is no means of Peace when it will do more hurt than good To cease the Ministry we durst not To use some indifferent forms in your Churches we could not being cast and kept out And to use the same to those that are against them when it will hurt them and procure no peace with you and those have sped worst from you that have come nearest you aud nothing will serve but all what tendency hath this to Unity You know my own case proveth all this I regarded not the censures of any that go too far so as to keep me from doing what I judged lawful And did it tend to peace No one sends me to Jail when I went twice a day to his Church Others say He is like an Ape that is so much the more ugly because he is like a man Another more sober saith I know not what to make of Mr. B. He communicateth with us and he preacheth to the Nonconformists Like a man that will go one step on one side the hedge and another step on the other And this man is much in the right for I say still It is the separating hedges in Christ's Vineyard that I hate and the enclosing hedge that I am for I have Business Friends Relations and great Duties on both sides the hedge some with you and some with others And if your hedges would separate Parents from Children Husband and Wife Christian Neighbours c. causelesly I will not be so separated but do my best to pull down that hedge And again consider whose sin it is that so many lawful things are denyed us for Unity Hold but to your Rule here and we are agreed And he seemeth to consent For Sect. 40. p. 176. Of the Rule Phil. 3. 16. he saith If I will but allow that by virtue of that Rule men are bound to do all things lawful for the preserving the peace of the Church we have no further difference about this matter Ans It 's well he will say so much of the Rule we gladly consent Then all the question is what 's lawful on both sides I add one Q. more Is it not lawful for peace to forbear forcing men to disoblige 1000 whom they never knew from being obliged by an Oath and Vow to that part of the matter which is good If it be the conjunction of some things bad that disobligeth them then he that inserteth a bad thing is free from all obligations of his vow even in materia licita necessaria And if the 〈…〉 of imposing Power be made the cause whether is the Corâ—… Oath imposed by a superior Power on the King or
is it his own â—…act or is he therefore not obliged by it Had it not been requisite that you should have justified all that we stick at as unlawful before you charge us with crossing this Rule Sect. 56. p. 204 c. My words in many Books against Schism are cited and praised Reader he tells men the measure of their Charity and Church Communion viz. That men that do as much as I do that forbore so long Sacramental Administration that gathered no Church that held constant Communion with divers Parish Churches that have wrote so much and earnestly against Schism shall yet be ejected silenced pay 40 â— a Sermon and lie in Jails unless I will do more While Bishop Lauds design for widening the Church doors to the Papists is magnified by Heylin and others as a good work Sect. 13. First he finds but two justifiable Causes of Separation but p. 213 214. he hath found three and no more 1. Idolatrous Worship 2. False Doctrine imposed instead of true 3. Making and imposing things indifferent as necessary to Salvation Ans 1. Readers do you remember how even now he exposed to odium the peoples judging whether the Pastors be Hereticks And now they may separate for false Doctrine 2. I intreat him to think again of these Cases following 1. What if the Worship be not Idolatrous but Blasphemous or utterly Ridiculous tending to contempt of God 2. What if it be in an unknown Tongue 3. What if the Church have no true Minister I am glad you are not for separating for want of Episcopacy or Episcopal Ordination 4. What if the Church want half the Church-Worship as to have Preaching and Prayer without Sacraments or Sacraments without Preaching or Prayer or Preaching without Prayer c. 5. What if the Church be but schismatical Have you written all this Book to draw men to you from the Independant Churches and do you now tell us that the people may not separate from them on the account of Schism 6. What if a Church require me to tell or subscribe to one known Lie or to say that I believe what I do not or to justifie thousands that I think obliged by a Vow if they break it What if they impose any one sin on me without which they will not receive me to Communion 7. What if I remove for my Edification from a drunkess ignorant Priest to the Church of a wise and holy Pastor 8. Are we looser than Pope Nicholas that forbad men to hear Mass from a Fornicating Pricst 9. I would you had spoken to Edification and told men what false Doctrine it is that will allow Separation and whether it 's false Doctrine preached or only imposed on the person to be owned If the former is it all false Doctrine or but some and what Verily if all you are tenfold more a Seperatist than I For I look to hear sometimes some words of false Doctrine in most Pulpits even of Conformists If it must be heresie it self I will not separate for once hearing it if the Church profess it not If it be imposed Error that you mean take heed lest you justifie Separation from your Church by the new Article of Infants certain Salvation And when both Arminians and Anti-Arminians subscribe the 39 Articles tell us whether those Articles are true in both their senses or whether the sence be not the thing subscribed or whether one half of them should separate You are too unmerciful to your self but what kind of Churches should there be upon your terms I find no more in his second part which I am much concerned in CHAP. VII The Reply to his Third Part The beginning Sect. 1. IN his third Part I first find my self accused p. 242 c. And that is not only by insisting on a false accusation of my words but adding a confutation of himself as if he discerned not that he did it In Treat of Concord I say If it holdeth that God instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion then none of the rest instituted by man may deprive them of their priviledges granted by Christ I put it but with an If it be so because I told them my own doubt of it After I say To devise new species of Churches without Gods Authority and impose them on the World yea in his name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks is worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies and Liturgies And can any Christian deny either of these But he saith This supposeth Congregational Churches to be so much the institution of Christ that any constitution above these is unlawful and unsupportable which is more than the Independant Brethren do assert And is any word of all this true 1. The Independants much insist on this I refer him now but to Amesii Medul de Eccl. Minist 2. Do the words suppose that which is plainly excepted in them If it were granted 1. That the Congregational only are so instituted 2. And that others are not set over them by God 3. And yet are obtruded in his name without his authority 4. And all Dissenters called Schismaticks then I say they are unlawful 5. To coufute himself plainly he confesseth that I say The question is not whether the Archbishops should be over the particular Churches as Successors to the Apostolical and General Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office Nor whether Patriarks Diocesans Lay-Chancellors as Officers of the King exercising Magistracy be lawful And yet he saith that I suppose the contrary He next pretends to give my Reasons And the chief is because it overthroweth the species of Gods making when I only say That which overthroweth it is unlawful which is not the Archbishops that are over the lower Bishops but those that put them all down and governed the Carkasses of the mortified particular Churches as the lowest Bishops of many score or hundred such as themselves And he saith I am for the full exercise of Discipline within the particular Church while he confest I spake not against Archbishops And yet he saith This is a fair representation of my opinion Sect. 2. Coming to prove our Episcopacy the same with the Primitive he pretendeth to confute me That which I asserted was 1. That by the first Institution and Constitution every Church no bigger for number of Souls than one of our great Parishes had a Bishop of their own one or more I disputed not 2. Yea that for the first two hundred years if not more no one Bishop had a Church so big as some of our Parishes at least except Alexandria and Rome and even of them it is not certain that they had more Souls 3. That after by degrees the case was altered But yet after there were many Meetings like Chappels a while there was but one Altar 4. After that those Chappels had Altars but so as that at certain times of the year the people of the Cities
Justinian and of seven after and Proconsular and the Church called Africae Caput as August ep 162. The sixth and seventh Carthage Councils tell us of the distribution of the Provinces decreeing three Judges to be sent out of each Province viz. Carthage Numidia Byzacena Mauritania c. Yea Leo 9. P. in Epist ad Thom. c. saith that the Bishop of Carthage was post Pont. Rom. primus Archiepiscopus totius Africae maximus Metropolitanus Though yet Binnius truly say that in Cyprian's time he was not an Archbishop that is no proper Governor of Bishops because they concluded in Council nemo nostrum dicitur Episcopus Episcoporum but he was the chief of that great Province And the Dr. himself out of Victor mentioneth one Cresseus that had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him He was Metropolitane of Aquitana and a Diocess then having many Provinces how many be in a Diocess Victor there 〈◊〉 you that the Bishop of Carthage in his own Eugitane Province had one hundred sixty four Bishops And how great were their Churches then and L. 2. when he lamenteth the great number of their banished Bishops Presbyters aud the Church-members were 4976. And one Parish here hath 40000 if not more He that considereth that Cyrus was at most but 60 miles from Antioch the Patriarchal Seat and that a Carthage Council had sometimes 600 Bishops and the Donatists perhaps had as many and that as he saith Cresceus had one hundred and twenty Bishops under him and that Cyprian so often tells us how Bishops were chosen by all the People and how he managed his Discipline in the presence of all his Plebs Laity and by their consent and how he telleth that it was the peoples duty to separate from the communion of a sinning Bishop which implieth communion before and how the Bishops in Council put the question When a Church wanted a Bishop whether one of them that was a Bishop and had perhaps but one or two or three Presbyters was bound to part with one to that wanting Church to make a Bishop of and considereth the circuit and distance of their Cities and much more which I have elsewhere named may well believe large Provinces and larger Diocesses but will think of their Bishops Churches as we must do of theirs in Ireland when a late converted Countrey had six hundred Bishops Make but Christs true discipline practicable and tie us not to swear or assent to your uncertain forms and we should no further trouble you in this Sect. 6. As for the credit he giveth to Syrmondu's copy of Theodoret's Epistle or to the later Editions of his Works I am not bound to be as credulous nor to take the last Editions for the best when they come out of the Jesuits hands And can prove the Epistle to Joh. Antioch which Bellarmine would disprove to be more credible than this And it 's one blot that he saith Theodoret's Epist 6. mentioneth the Metropolitane he was under when he was under none but was himself an Independant Metropolitane For so the Notitiae Episc tells us was Berytus Heliopolis Laodicea Samasata Cyros Pompriopolis Mopsuestia and Adama If his Province was as the Epistle cited saith fourty Miles square and the Christians so numerous as is said and he name none of the Bishops under him but number the Churches it 's like they were Episcopal Churches and very small And that Villages had Churches it 's no wonder when there were many Chorepiscopi not only under the Metropolitanes but the City Bishops And why I must reject his long received Work if I question his late found Epistles I know not But again I say this is nothing to our cause being so long after the ages I mentioned my contrary evidence being not at all confuted His confidence p. 260 261. about some citations out of Theodoret runs upon false Insinuations 1. That the question is not of the number of Churches but about the extent of the Episcopal Power whether it was limited to one Parochial Church or extended over many when he knoweth that I had no such question but whether those whose power was over many Churches in the first two Centuries at least had not as many Bishops under them over those Churches if such there were Or if the Bishops were of the lowest rank whether those under were not then denyed to be Churches for want of Bishops and were not only parts of a Church 2. And he feigneth me to bring Theodorets Testimonies to prove that even then in Alex. and Antioch a Church was but one Congregation when I brought it only to prove that even in that age they were so small that the footsteps of the ancient shape of them still appeared Such Fictions may deceive them that will not try what is said but only read the answerer But by this citation I see he read my Treatise of Episc before his Book came out And therefore I will pass by these niblings till he answer it Sect. 7. p. 262. He accuseth me of Rage and Bitterness for saying that if he will plead for so much Presumption Profanation of Gods name Usurpation Uncharitableness and Schism as to own their Churches to be new and devised without Gods Authority and yet may in his name be imposed on the World and all Dissenters called Schismaticks I leave him And first he feigneth that I charge him with this which is untrue unless he will charge himself with it But why do I put in If you will so plead Ans Because he accused me for saying the contrary viz. that so to divise and so to impose is worse c. But because I know not why he accused so plain a truth I said If you do so But he now tells me that he quoted it to shew that I looked on all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mans devising which is another untruth confessed by himself who before had this up and cited my own words to the contrary viz. that I believe the Catholick Church and deny not National associated Churches nor Archbishops that put not down the particular Churches Pastors and Discipline one mistake is his excuse for another Had he meant as aforesaid had my words been Rage or necessary confutation Sect. 8. Yea it is his business in the very next page 263 to confute his own accusation of me by citing my own concessions And p. 264. he giveth me leave to call our Bishops Archbishops Ans But 1. Archbishops have Churches with their proper Bishops under them But our Bishops say that there are no such under them 2. I told you before that as the Major General Quartermaster General c. of an Army constituteth not a distinct body from the Army and the particular Regiments and Troops so I am not certain that Apostles or Evangelists or any general Preachers as such did constitute any Church Form distinct from the Catholick and the particular Bishops Churches But if they are supposed to have taken
after against the Emperours negative voice in the confirmation of Popes 2. And his negative in Investing Bishops But even in this strife the Election was confest to be in the Clergy the People chusing or freely consenting and no man to be made their Bishop against their will and it was but the Investiture per bâ—culum annulum as a confirmation which the Emperours claimed § 14. I have formerly named elder Testimonies not denied I will now recite but some Canons of Councils 1. The 9th and 10th Canons of the first great Nicene Council nullifieth the very Ordination of scandalous uncapable men And in the Arab. Can. 4. Si populo placebit is made a condition of the Episcopal relation And c. 5. in case of the Peoples disagreement the said People must take the most blameless 2. The Roman Council said to be under Silvester of 275 Bishops saith No Bishop shall Ordain any Clerke nisi cum omni adunatâ Ecclesia but with all the Church united If this Council be not certain the very forgers shew the Antiquity of the Churches right and custom 3. I before named a Council at Capua that decreed that the two Bishops at Antioch chosen by their two Churches should live in Love and Peace 4. Chrysostom's Church of Joannites would rather separate than forsake their chosen Bishop or his honour though Emperour Council and Patriarch was against him and though Cyril Alex. wrote that their breach of Canons was intolerable and to tolerate them a few stubborn Nonconformists would but discourage the obedient 5. Even the famous Pope Caelestine who helpt Austin against the Pelagians Decreed Let no man be given a Bishop to the unwilling Let the sense and desire of the Clergy the Laity and Magistracy ordinis be required or necessary 6. How the people deposed Theodosius Bishop of Synada and chose another and the change approved I have elsewhere shewed 7. After Atticus death the Clergy at Constantinople were for Philip or Proclus but the people chose Sisinnius and prevailed 8. Sisinnius sent Proclus to be Bishop at Cyzicum but the people refused him and chose another 9. The Orleance Council an 540. Can. 3. decreeth about Ordaining Bishops Qui praeponendus est omnibus ab omnibus eligatur as of old viz. Let him be chosen by all who is to be set over all 10. An. 541. The Concil Avern decree c. 2. That none seek the sacred Office of a Bishop by Votes but by merit nor seem to get a Divine Office rebus sed moribus and that he ascend to the top of that eminent dignity by the election of all and not by the favour of a few and that in chusing Priests there be the greatest care because c. Therefore another Council at Orleance decreed that a Bishop must be ordained in his own Church which he must oversee 11. Another Orleance Council decree c. 10 That none get a Bishoprick by gifts or seeking but with the will of the King by the election of the Clergy and the Lay-people And Can. 11. And as the ancient Canons have decreed Let none be made Bishop to an unwilling People or without the Peoples consent Nor let the People or the Clergy be inclined to consent by the oppression of persons in power a thing not lawful to be spoken But if it be otherwise done let the Bishop be for ever deposed c. 12. I have formerly cited Pope Gregory I. his express Decrees herein 13. Clodovâ—us his Council at Cabilone renewed the old Decree That all Ordination of Bishops be null which was otherwise made than by the election of the Com-Provincials the Clergy and the Citizens 14. The General Council called Quinosextum an 692. decreed Can. 22. That Bishops and Priests Ordained with Money and not by Examination and Election be deposed Though the same Council by humane wisdom decreed Can. 38. That whatsoever alteration the Imperial power maketh on any City the Ecclesiastical Order also follow it The way by which Humane Order overthrew Divine Order and Institutions 15. And by the way you may conjecture of the Chusers by the Council of Toletane an 693. under King Egica where the King Preaching to the Bishops as was then needful decreeth That every Parish that hath twelve Families have their proper Governour But if it have less than twelve it shall be part of another's charge 16. K. Pepin who advanced the Pope to advance himself and added the Sword to Excommunication by mischievous decree yet altered not the common way of Election and decreeth that every City like our Corporations have a Bishop and none meddle in another's Diocess without his consent 17. The choice of Pope Constantine the humiliation of Stephen and many such instances shew that even at Rome still the People had the greatest hand in chusing the Pope and that to Communicate with a Bishop irregularly chosen was taken for a great sin And when Charles Mag. was gratified as to the Papal Chair it was but by making him a necessary Confirmer 18. The French Constitutions l. 1. c. 84. objected about this by Baronius and Binius say Not being ignorant of the sacred Canons we consented to the Ecclesiastick Orders to wit that Bishops be chosen by the Election of the Clergy and People according to the Statutes of the Canons out of their own Diocess without respect of persons or rewards for the merit of their life and their gift of wisdom that by example and word they may every way profit those that are under them 19. The old Canons gathered by Pope Adrian and sent to Charles Magn. recorded by Canisius depose a Bishop Presbyter or Deacon guilty of Theft Fornication or Perjury And Can. 28. A Bishop who obtaineth a Church by the secular power shall be deposed And Can. 33. That no one pray with Hereticks or Schismaticks Ex conc Sard. Can. 2. A Bishop that by ambition changeth his seat shall not have so much as Lay Communion at his end That no Bishop be above three weeks in another City nor above two weeks from his own Church Can. 17. A Bishop contradicted by opposers shall not after be ordained or purged by only three Bishops but by many And Can. 94. The people converted from Heresie by another Bishop may be of his flock without removing their Parish dwelling where another is Bishop Amongst the other 80 Canons against oppression as one is That no Bishop judge any Priest without the presence of his Clergy it being void if not so confirmed So another is against all foreign Judgment because men must be judged by those that are chosen by themselves and not by strangers And none of the Clergy must be condemned till lawful Accusers be present and the Accused answer the Charge 20. The second General Council at Nice though by servility they were for Images held to the old Church-Canons for Elections saying Can. 3. Every Election of a Bishop Priest or Deacon which is made by Magistrates shall remain void by the
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth
thing the doubt is whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful while he is bound to do it himself 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings which I never knew one perform nor seem to mean it save such as take poor mens kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own 3. And if it be done without serious intention Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness and prophane taking God's name in vain to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation § 4. This is a great point and he doth well to handle it diligently His explication of it is this p. 382. 1. The Church hath the power of the Keys True but not as he and the Brownists say The whole Church but only the Pastors 2. They may baptize capable subjects No doubt of it 3. Infants are capable subjects Answ But what Infants All or some Is this our satisfaction If it be All Infants then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right when the Parents have none Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force When even Aquinas and other Papists say that Children may not be baptized against the Parents wills I have elsewhere at large proved 1. That Baptism is but the sealing of the Covenant and the delivering of possession by Ministerial Investiture and not the first gift or condition of our right to Christ and his benefits 2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-consent are the Conditions which Baptism after solemnly expresseth 3. That if a true penitent believing consenter die without Baptism he is saved and if tâ—…ptized adult die without faith repentance and heart-consent he is damned 4. That therefore all the adult must have an entitling condition to give them right first initially coram Deo to pardon of sin and then to be baptized which solemnly delivereth their full right before they can be lawfully baptized 5. That God dealeth not so differently with Infants and Adult as to require conditions of right in the later and none in the former as if they were all born with right 6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their seed and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers And that if both Parents be Infidels the Children are unclean but else they are holy And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World confoundeth not their Childrens case This I have fully proved in my Disp of Original sin and Treat of right to Sacraments 7. That Baptism sealeth and delivereth to the qualified subject the present pardon of sin and right to Christ and life as to adopted Children of God And therefore there must be some reason and proof of a right to it more than all Infants in the world have 8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptism and speaking feignedly in their name that giveth them right to a sealed pardon and salvation It must be one that can prove himself entitled to represent the Child which none can that cannot say He is my own 9. If it were otherwise Atheists Infidels wicked men though Baptized could give no right to the sealed pardon or to the Investiture in a state of life to which they have no right themselves And if they represent no better Parents as such they can give them no right save coram Ecclesia when they are not infideles judicati 10. Nor doth it suffice to an Infants right that the Minister or Church be Christians Therefore to tell us that Infants are right subjects signifieth nothing till either 1. He tell us what Infants 2. Or prove that all Infants have right which he can never do And if he could I would easily prove that all dying Infants are saved whether Baptized or not As I can prove that true Christian Infants are § 5. While he gives us not the least satisfaction of Infants Right he tells us of difficulties on the other side if we lay it on Parents or Owners right And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions which the Reader will be loth I should digress to try having done it so largly in my Christ Direct and Treat of Right to Sacraments 2. He nameth the qualification which I â—â—â—rt A profession of the Christian faith not invalidated and saith nothing to disable it but that Others will reject it Others wild Opinions named goes for my Confutation And now I desire the Reader to see the Catalogue of the things we account sinful in Conformity in my first Plea for Peace and try how many of them the Doctor hath so much as meddled with And whether he think by these few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful or our Preaching unlawful or our Communion with those Christians who are not of his mind herein unlawful If he say again that he meddleth not with Ministers Conformity but the Peoples 1. Note how he hath passed by even the greatest things also in their case 2. Whether he meddle not with the Ministers case who seeketh to prove their preaching unlawful and so perswades them to be silent 3. Whether their case should not be so far meddled with as to prove the things which they think sinful to be lawful or their preaching unnecessary before the endeavours used against them well known be justified as needful to the Churches Peace CHAP. XIII Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth § 1. WHat advantage to the Drs. Cause the three Letters of the French Divines annexed can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer sounds and shews I know not But could we know these things following we might better understand the judgment of the Writers Quest 1. Whether he that sought their judgment did make them understand what all our present Impositions and Acts of Conformity are and what alterations are made in the Church of England since the beginning of Bishop Lands power 2. Whether he made them truly understand the difference between the ancient Episcopacy and the English Diocesan frame in all its parts 3. Whether he did put the Case as about Subscribing â—â— Declaring Covenanting or Swearing Assent and Consent to all things and practising accordingly or only of living in Communion with them which do such things 4. Whether he put the case as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things or as denying Communion in the rest which are lawful 5. Whether he made them understand that we are ipso facto excommuncate by their Canon for telling our judgment 6. Whether he made them understand that it was about 2000 Ministers that were silenced and what men are in many of their places and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them and what men they are and what they did to prevent all our divisions 7. Whether he made them understand what measure of Communion we
still maintain with the Church of England and the Parish Churches 8. Whether he put the case to them whether we that have Communion with them are Schismaticks if we also have Communion with others whom they prosecute 9. Whether he put the question to them whether we are lawfully silenced and if not whether rebus sic stantibus we are bound to forbear our Ministry 10. Whether he made them know that all the Ministers of England as well as we were forbidden to Preach c. unless they would Conform to that we are ready to prove unlawful And if it prove so whether they should all either have sinned or been silent in obedience 11. Whether he made them understand how many thousands there be in London that cannot have room in the Parish-Churches and the Nonconformists Churches set together but live like Atheists 12. Whether he acquainted them that the question is whether all godly dissenters that are cast out or cannot joyn in the Parish way of Liturgick Worship must till their judgments change give over all publick worship of God and be forsaken of all Teachers 13. Whether he acquainted them how loud a Call we had to preach in London first by the Plague then by the burning of the Churches the people being deserted by the Parish Ministers in these sad extremities 14. Whether he acquainted them with the Kings Licences and our being accused of Schism even when Licensed 15. Whether he acquainted them with what we have said for ourselves lately in divers Books or they judg'd us unheard 16. Whether they be singular or whether it be the judgment of the Protestant Churches in France that it is a sin for any to preach or publickly worship God when the King Bishops and Law forbid them And if so How long it hath been their judgment and why all their Churches ceased not when prohibited If not so How to know that our silencing Laws and Bishops must be obeyed and not theirs There is no understanding their answers till we know how the case was stated § 2. Mr. Clodes Letter is moderate and it 's like they took the case to be about proper separation and so say no more in the main than some Nonconformists have said against the Brownists But the Dr. hath dealt too unmercifully with Mr. Le Moine in publishing his Epistle when it was so easie to know how few if any would believe his story but take it for a confirmation how incredible our accusers are I mean his story that five years ago he heard one of the most famous Nonconformists preach in a place where were three men and three or fourscore women he had chosen a Text about the building up the ruins of Jerusalem and for explication cited Plinny and Vitruvius a hundred times c. I think I shall never speak with the person that will believe him sure I am London knoweth that the Nonconformists are the most averse to such kind of Preaching And I know not one of them that I can say ever read a quarter of Vitruvius I confess I never read a leaf of him This Monsieur would do well to tell us yet the name of the man that if living he may be call'd to account But I doubt he fell into some Tabernacle of which many are erected in place of the burnt Churches and perhaps heard the Conformist who had occasion to talk of architecture But yet I will not believe that either Conformist or Nonconformist would expose himself to common scorn by an hundred or twenty such citations § 3. And his description of the mens horrible impudence to excommunicate without mercy the Church c. imagining that they are the only men in England nay in the Christian world that are predestimated to eternal happiness c. and then pronouncing them intolerable sheweth that it is not us that he speaketh of nor any company that is known to us neither our Separatists here nor Anabaptists nor so much as the very Quakers holding any such thing § 4. And though he saith He was not at all edified by the Nonconformists preaching it followeth not that no others are Nor that none were edified in England or Scotland while publick Preachers went the Nonconformists way § 5. But because the Doctor chuseth this way I will imitate him though with the Apology that St. Paul gloried and give him notice of some Epistles of men that judged otherwise of the Nonconformists CHAP. XIV Epistles or Testimonies compared with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Joseph Glanvile's Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant with a Letter of his to the Author heretofore and a Digression of Doctor L. Moulin § 1. IN general he that will read the Lives of many of the old Nonconformists Hildersham Dod and many such and Bishop Hall's Character of Dr. Reynolds and the late published Lives of Mr. Joseph Allen John Janeway Dr. Winter Mr. Macham Mr. Wadsworth Mr. Stubbs c. will see better what to judge of them than by our three French Epistles Yea Thuanus giveth a juster Character of many abroad that were of their mind And John Fox one of them of more § 2. And to our three French-men I will when it will be of more use than seeming vanity return you four French-mens Letters to my self Mr. Gaches Mr. Amyralds Mr. Le Blanks and Mr. Testards and if you will some Germans too Calvinists and Lutherans of a quite differing sense of us Nonconformists But Mr. Gaches being already in Print by the Duke of Lauderdales means 1660. and joyned with one of Mr. L'Angles I leave the Reader that desireth to see both § 3. But because Mr. Jos Glanvile was one of themselves here though an Origenist a most triumphant Conformist and not the gentlest contemner of Nonconformists and famous for his great wit I will repay the Dr. with the annexing one among many since of his Letters to my self which yet indeed I do not chiefly to ballance the Drs. but to help the Reader to understand Mr. Glanvile and his posthumous Book which I think not meet to pass by without some Animadversions Though I have great reason to hope that dying so soon after it and his preferment the experience of the Vanity of a flattering World might help to save him from impenitence As I have read in divers credible writers it was with Dr. Matthew Sutliffe that on his Death-bed he repented that he had written so much against the Reformers called Puritans I perceive Dr. Stillingfleet marvelleth that my own expectations of approaching Death do not hinder me from writing what I do for the Nonconformists whereas the truth is had not pain and weakness kept me from my youth as in the continual prospect of the Grave and the next life I had never been like to have been so much against Conformity and the present Discipline of this Church that is their want of Discipline as I have been For the World might have more flattered me and byassed my Judgment