one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
Proximate Right that one hath and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic nunc to join with and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church is that which doth actually make him a Member of it And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission whether it be the Dr's Crossing or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end for these are but the external declarative Signs not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation and therefore these are but the Tokens not the Foundation of Actual Membership But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned is ones being so Circumstantiated that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances here rather than elsewhere which is determined by his place of residence not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine but a Civil Constitution yet it hath its use for shunning confusion And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted is his being a Visible Believer Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions and his right may also be superseded and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances by his contradicting his profession by Heresie or Scandal Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists willful Deserters of the Church Atheists c. So every one that liveth in a Parish is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion which that Church doth sinfully require To clear this a little further consider that to make Actually and Compleatly a Member of a particular Church beside his residence there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person and that either Explicite or Implicite The Implicite consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person Word Sacraments Discipline The Implicite consent of the Person lyeth in ordinary using of or submission to these Now where the Church is willing and the Person is not and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause the Person may be charged with sinful Separation where the Person is willing but the Church is not And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal or by refusal unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions the Person is no Separatist but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation In this last case which is our case the Person is a Member affectu but not effectu This is to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand we are Members of the Church of England affectu i. e. Being by providence fixed in England where Christ's Truth is professed and his Ordinances administred we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under to join in the Ordinances without submitting to sinful Terms And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinanâ—es we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies for the present distress where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administred and there we are effectu Members where we thus ordinarily meet And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu for we declare a readiâ—ess whenever these unlawful barrs from Communion with her shall be removed that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast If after all this the Dr. or his Party will charge us as he doth with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles and Prevarication in manageing of them we must bear that injustice Sect. 10. He dealeth p. 105 106 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful I have â—o fully set down my opinion in this and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things tho' many of them may word them better that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth I will not defend He taketh up part of p. 107 108 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies to be Members of the Church nor excuse them from Separation I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs For it is not Occasional Communion alone but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her and so maketh us Members so far as we can and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholick principles This he highly derideth and laboriously refuseth p. 110 111 112 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch It is not their saith he Obligation to Peace and Vnity with the Church as Members of it that moveth but a certain Romantick fancy of Catholick Vnity Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations And therefore by the fault of the Imposers we have no other way to shew our owning the Church as a true Church but this Occasional Communion Let him call it a Romantick Fancy or what he will we separate from no true Church and much less frâ—m that where we live but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again he argueth from a supposition That if we were at Jerusalem where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and one should ask us what Church we were Members of If we should Answer we are fixed Members of no Church but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches Would they take such a Man for a Christian Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer as he feigneth for us for his own advantage I should in that case join my self to the purest Church that I could there meet with being at Liberty to choose and not prelimitted by my habitation if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion And then should Answer to the Question I am here free to join with you or any tolerable Church but do Actually join with you as the purest during my abode here When I
am at home I would join with the Publick Assembly in the True Protestant Church of England but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart and in that Assembly I am a Member till I can find a sinless access to the Publick Assembly where I desire to be a Member I suppose the Eastern Christians such as are sober and serious of them and are duly informed of the State of our Debates would not think me no Christian for this Answer nor deny me Occasional Communion for it I am sure if they did they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is p. 111. We were baptized in the Church of England and received as Members of it If then we communicate with it only occasionally we renounce our membership Ans. Whereever one be baptized that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholick Church If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France and have his Child there baptized in the English way or in the French way Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England and there have Education and continue The Dr. had not it seems when his Book had come this length hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission as a Member of the Church of England Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion though not by our being baptized in this Church yet by our residence in it and owning the same â—aith with it and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin and therefore we do not renounce our Membership but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion and it is no wonder for his Party forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing desire none of our communion as appeareth in excluding us by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless and we judge unlawful But whatever he think of it it is all that we can do We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion p. 111 112. is pure Trifling unworthy of so learned an Author That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church For a man may occasionally have Communion in publick when he cannot have it in private and that often And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church which we would not do in a false Church but rather be without the Ordinances for that time Again We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church in any of Her corruptions we should alwaies abstain from and reprove those as he speaketh These things being considered the difficult Case of Conscience that he fansies hath an easie resolution That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined to shun the sinful Impositions that are in publick we should wait on them there rather than elsewhere but when that occasion is not offered we may join with a Church in some things corrupted in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it Sect. 14. His next Argument is That here are no Bounds to the peoples Fancies of purer Administrations and less defective ways of Worship so that there can be no stop to separation in this way This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs more than with solid Reasons which he but undeservedly most severely had taxed Mr. A. for he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over and going to Anabaptists and thence to the Quakers and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church unless they be secure that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fansy any defect in it Noâ—hing here that hath a shadow of Argument but it is already objected and answered but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions I answer It is not only for purer Administrations that we withdraw but to shun sinful Impositions which I am sure neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly alledge Neither is it the glaring visibility but the real Scripture-warrant for our way that condemneth them for departing from us Nor will Fansied Defects in our way excuse them but real sinful Terms in our Communion But that some will without cause separate from us is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you Such a way of reasoning from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this had forgotten it seems what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for It is incident even to wise men Dum vitant vitia that in contraria currunt it is downright for us and against himself What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions as to practice What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelesly divide the Church if he intended it against any others let him answer it The sad effects of R. William's Separation in New-England do not concern us further than to lament them unless the Dr. can prove that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection that he had made I insist not on save that I observe his usual way here also his representing his Adversaries as if they held That Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces We think the less defective that Worship be it is the better but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion a sufficient ground of Separation Far less do we think that the Peoples apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture or found Reason And least of all do we think that such
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
the Lord with them by their sinful Impositions and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise by their Persecutions many things of that nature are our Affliction and their Sin but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking and come to attend him in his second to wit That constant Communion is a Duty where Occasional Communion is lawful This he manageth Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this as it is here set down to wit joining with other Parishes in a Journey at a Lecture c. but I am willing to understand it with the Dr. of Communion with a Church whereof we have been or should be Members and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties for his opinion in this he bringeth two Arguments the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church This he inforceth by proving this Obligation which none of us ever denied but do with more reason retort all that can be said on that heâ—d on themselves who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies â—or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity but the Dr. should have proved 1. That our coming to their Sermons as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication and Câ—piâ—ndo's would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Vnity 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away to desert these Meetings and wait on so much of their Administrations as they should be pleasâ—d to allow us Our Hearts do not reproach us as this Learned Author doth That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience He meaneth toward Communion with the Church Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it is built on a mistake to wit That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments If Mr. B. or any other are of that opinion I know not why they should be Non-conformists If I were convinced of it I should not deny constant Communion with the Church whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth p. 159. when they speak of some cases where joining with the Church would do more harm than good Was ever Schism saith he made so light of And the Peace and Vnity of Christianity valued at so low a rate Ans. Yes to wit by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony for the Peace that they so much talk of but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force to the dividing of the Church the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians than these men do if you believe their deeds and yet value it more highly if ye regard their words He asketh p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies Ans. We read part of that Service-Book daily in our Assemblies to wit the Scriptures therein contained we read them out of the Bible but for using the Book or any part of it as in that composure we find no obligation on us to that both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church more than Preaching of the same Doctrine and praying for the same things is counted by them also we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service as a humane device that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship Aâ—d lastly because having once parâ—ed with them in the matter of worship we think we should take our Rule for manageing our Worship from the Scripture rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Sect. 6. All his Arguments Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake to wit that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful If that were true Communion with them sometimes for peace might well inferr constant Communion for the same good design Neither do I say that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere then where we are Members of a Church I look not on our Lords Communion with the Jewish Church as only Occasional but Constant so far as the Woâ—k that he was sent into the World for did permit but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship as the Dr. alledgeth p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication as other Jews were is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it and therefore his bare asserting it should not have been thought enough to set it off All that the Scripture saith of this is That he walked in Solomon's Porch Joh. 10. 22 23. Did none of the Jews more than this at that Feast Is it not to be thought that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings and other religious Observations on account of the want of Institution and defended the Non-conformity of his Disciples to these Observations would himself observe a Religious Solemnity that had no other warrant nor foundation but what those other things had which he condemneth It is then rational to think that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse as the Apostles after did when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated and not fit to be observed Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument Sect. 19. from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful constant Communion is a Duty for saith he from hence appeareth evident that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity This Argument is but lamely proposed and this Scripture but weakly improved by what the Dr. saith to prove his design Two things it seems he would inferr from it to wit Vniformity and Study of Peace I first ask him whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined so
very Constitution of a Church in which we differ from them as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did of whom he saith that they held That nothing could justifie Separation from the Church but such corruptions which overthrow the Being of it And he saith The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation lay in this and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church For proving of this he sheweth That the Separatists thought nothing could justifie their Separation but that which nullified the Church and it is no wonder for they minded nothing but an active Separation and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed It is true they mention the Service as one of their Pleas for Separation but not barely as unlawful to be used but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded For what he addeth p. 35 c. that the Non-conformists when they would disprove the Separation only proved the Church of England to be a True Church It is no wonder that they minded no more seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause But Did they ever teach that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful which is the one half of the Controversie that we now manage He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists p. 36. at the end That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this without giving the least advantage against our Cause for we do not separate our selves but the Door is shut against us by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies which we cannot use without Sin and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these Again We do not continually separate from the Church but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out the Separatists could say neither of these That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is is evident for they were men of so much Sence and Reason as that they could not imagine it impossible that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church because of sinful Terms of Communion required They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus to refrain from the Communion of that Church if that Communion were denied to that Member unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans or at least consent to the tolerating of it Such is our Case we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church unless we will approve by our practice the Ceremonies which we judge sinful with what Face can they blame us for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them 1 Sam. 26. 19. They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord saying go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile because he waited not on the Temple Service And yet the Necessity that he was under of abstaining from it was not so great as ours That was Bodily Hazard ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God. Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted as any that readeth and understandeth them may perceive What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson and Ball against Can is nothing against us to wit That the Church of England is a true Church From p. 39. He sheweth that Non-conformists held That the Corruptions of the Church of England were not such as did over-throw the Being and Constitution of it which we willingly yield to What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists p. 40 41. about Forms of Prayer and the English Liturgy shall be examined in its due place if the Lord permit I know some Non-conformists have had and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have But as now there are so of old there were others that could not comply with it What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian if he thought them Lawful to be used which is our Question I know not why he should be reckoned a Non-conformist But indeed there is nothing of that in what the Dr. Citeth p. 41 42. What he bringeth p. 42 43 44 45 46 47. out of several Non-conformists to shew that the Ministry Discipline and Hierarchy of the Church of England is not Antichristian nor the Church-Antichrist we are not concerned to disprove and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing it being wholly beside the question Some things he maketh them say that deserve a little Animadversion but I will not now Digress to take notice of them Sect. 12. He proceedeth Sect. 12. To give Accompt of the Independent Separation and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation I confess there is a present Separation that these Reasons do hold against for that same Separation doth still continue But he doth not prove his point unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude that we should use the Ceremonies rather than forbear church-Church-Communion with the Prelatists But his Reasons for what he saith we shall attend in their course What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists by the breaking of Brown's Church in Midleborough and his jugling in the Matters of God I know not This long Story hath either no design which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts or an ill design which I am loth to impute to one of his Worth. However it be we disclaim all concern in it There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others as well as among Non-conformists That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Publick Assemblies a Cursed Convenâ—icâ—e it may be there was cause if Brown was such a bad Man as the Dr. maketh him But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissentions that followed to the Judgment of God on them this we are no way concerned to Apologize for Their way was Evil and it did not prosper If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil let him pass what Judgment he will on what befalleth us but till then Sobriety in judging is becoming No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them because of the Confusions and Ruin that followed in Germany on the Reformation We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us but we are not convinced that the Things in Controversy are to be
to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for non-Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh lay-Lay-communion easier than before
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of lay-Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
saith it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church because he saith We receive him into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him c. Answer It is not material to our debate which of the Two be said for the question is Whether the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ when he hath already appointed a sign for that end We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign to be done in her name after the person is already dedicated by Christs sign and in His name If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number and that may be done in her name I answer by Christs sign that is also done by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christs Flock But beside this it is evident that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church but dedicating of the person to Christ not only from the plain words of the Canon of which already but by what followeth in the words used at the signing which are We receive him into the number of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Souldier and Servant unto his lives end Amen Will any man say that this is meer admission as a Member of the Church or into the Church of England and that no more is intended by these words Is it not made a sign of our Covenant or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism To wit all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of The absurdity of this notion to wit that Crossing is meerly an admitting sign will yet further appear if we consider that in the same office of Baptism used by the Church of England the Minister having put the God-fathers in mind of Christs promise to the Infant to be baptised he is to say Wherefore after this promise made by Christ these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties that they will forsake the Devil and all his works and constantly believe Gods Holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments This is the baptismal Dedication I hope that will not be denied Now is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign as well as Baptism And it may as well be said that Baptism is meerly a rite of admission into the Church as that is such Sect. 22. He telleth us page 351. that all publick admissions into Societies have some Ceremonie belonging to them That we deny not and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church which he having done how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end As Baptism saith the Doctor is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used withâ—ut prescribing to other Churches This now is the fine new Notion for the sake of which all the foregoing discourse is designed The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour and hard throws of a Mountain I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. that by this one Notion the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book which is to charge them with separation most of whom he here doth implicitely and by necessary consequence acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England they never having been signed with the Cross For if they never were Members they were not capable of separation more than another Mans Leg can be said to be cut off from my body to which it never was united 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church but the quite contrary as is evident from what is already cited both out of the Thirtieth Canon and out of the Office of Baptism both which are the authentick Writings of the Church wherefore this is to be lookt on as but one Doctors Opinion and we are to take the scope and meaning of the Churches Ceremonies from her own declaration and not from the thoughts of any one man when he is streightned in defending of these rites 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross should be willing now to join as Members of the Church and to submit to all her terms of Communion whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission The same may be enquired concerning any Baptized in France Scotland or any other Church I suppose he will not own such Crossing I am sure it was never heard of if he say it is not to be done How do these become Members of the Church The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant even where it is not joined with Baptism why then do not the Church of England for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church require this Crossing out of Baptism if it be meerly a sign of admission into the Church of England 4. If the Church and the Dr. too and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church would declare never so often that this is the use and the only use of Crossing all this could not satisfy as long as the words used with it and the Religious State in which it is by their practice sixed do make the contrary apparent Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross his Brethren do not approve yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating or common professing sign of Baptized Persons to wit that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end Then the Dr. answereth True but not only for that end but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men for which God oâ—ly ought to appoint means Reply 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christs for all the ends that they are appointed for but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends because Christs means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify Gods promise of giving grace but also to signify our engagement to perform duty Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one more than for the other 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a
Ministers whom he taunteth as high pretenders to and self-applauders in wisdom and self-denial would in so critical a Time have joined with them against the common Enemy or let them know their Sense of the present state of things Except in their Ceremonies the Non-conformists were never backward to join with them and much less at that time for letting the Church-men know their sense of things I know not what occasion they had for that except in their Sermons in which they were asplain and faithful against Popery as their Brethren were He next falleth heavily on the Plea for Peace and true and only way of Concord as most Vnseasonable and Divisive pieces The Author of these Books is of age and ability to answer for himself and yet living and writing I need say nothing for him only this I make bold to say abating the vehemency of the stile and forwardness of that learned man's genius which sometimes run into over-lashes that another cannot so well defend as himself for the substance of the Books let the Dr. try it when he will he may possibly find it a hard-enough Task to deal with them What that Author saith in the name of the whole party which the Dr. taketh advantage from p. 37. doth not oblige the party further than they see Cause to own it Sect. 28. The Reverend Dr. doth begin p. 39. to give account of the occasion and Design of his Sermon which was answered by several Hands and in defence of which this Book now under our consideration was written I shall concern my self little about it being ready to give all possible Charity to the design of so worthy a person in undertaking and managing that Affair I shall consider what is said on this occasion no further than shall be needful to the defence I now manage of our present way It is most injurâ—ous that he asserteth that by such Books as he had mentioned the zeal of many was turned off from the Papists against those of the Church Is there any thing in these Books that favoureth Papists or any thing that maketh the Church of England worse than that of Rome If withdrawing from the Corruptions of the Church be defended this hath no tendency to lessen Zeal against Papists He that complaineth of hard usage tho' without cause should not so retaliate as to call his Brethren who differ from him and give reasons for their so doing an enraged but unprovoked company of Men. This and much of that nature we resolve patiently to bear He must give us leave to deny what he imputeth to our way p. 40. That It is a great dangerous and unaccountable Separation If his Arguments against it prove as hard as his Words it will not be easie to stand before him if this be to touch us with a soft and gentle hand as ibidem what will his severities prove Sure he hath forgot himself when with the same breath he calleth us peevish and partial men and saith he resolved to give us no just provocation by reproachful Language or personal Reflections Sect. 29. The Vnseasonableness of this make-bate Sermon is objected which he attempteth to disprove with a Flood of Words all built on this Foundation That the Church was reviled run down by a popular Fury c. This is the usual respect the learned Dr. is pleased to treat his Antagonists with Other men think that a modest Dissent and with-holding Communion in unlawful things backed with solid Reasons given for so doing was all that the Non-conformists were guilty of and that that needed not give such an Alarm as if there had been a Design to ruin the Church as he fansieth and unbyassed men will think that such a Sermon on purpose chosen to be preached before the Magistrate rather than before his Ordinary Hearers doth not savour so much of a design to guard the Consciences of the People against Non-conformity as of some other Design what that was may be easily guessed at for all that is said to the contrary I speak now of the Tendency of the thing rather than of the Intention of the person but I rather chuse to wave this matter than contend about it being more concern'd about the Truth of what was said than the Season of Saying it I shall be as little concerned about the sharpness and severity of his Sermon which is the other Objection that he answereth from p. 44. though I am sure what I have already noted in this Preface sheweth that such a way of treating Dissenters is not ab hoc homine alienum but I must do him that right as to acknowledge that there is more mildness expressed in the Sermon than here he being galled by the pungent Reasons of his Answerers yet there wants not some Vinegar in the Ink that the Sermon was written with but I confess that is so common a fault among imperfect men that we must say Veneam damus petimusque vicissim for my part I study to shun it but if I be overtaken in this fault I am willing to be admonished and corrected We think Schism as great a Sin as the Dr. doth and seeing he thinketh the blame of it is on our part I judge it but consequent to that Opinion that he exposed it and us by reason of it with all its Aggravations and if we cannot clear our selves in this matter let us lie under as much blame as he can load us with But withal I hope he will remember that if the Schism be caused by the fault of his party all the sad imports of his excellent Discourse will return on his own Head and those of his way Wherefore I wish all this had been waved and the merits of the Cause only minded Sect. 30. The Expression that his Adversaries are so offended with to wit that he saith p. 49. The most godly People among them can least endure to be told of their faults is as I think not sufficiently vindicated by saying that He meant it of them who will not hear their own Teachers telling them of the sin of Separation as Mr. B. alledgeth for they that are so unteachable are not the most godly of the Non-conformists I hope there are among them who can hear Sin of whatever sort charged on them and soberly consider what is said and if on Enquiry they be convinced of a fault will humble themselves and confess if not will soberly clear their Innocency by Reasons Far less is it a fit Vindication of this Assertion to apply what he had said to Dr. O. Mr. B. Mr. A. and the rest of the Answerers of his Sermon I hope he doth not think that Defence of Truth or of that which one is convinced to be such is alwaies the Sin of not enduring to be told of faults Neither do I by so saying referr the determining of our Debates to mens Fancies which he hinteth p. 47. that we call the Dictates of Conscience I am sorry that he doth
apprehend pleaseth him without mens leave when they cannot do it with their leave It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Vniformity and not rather in Consent in the main points of Religion and loving forbearance in reference to the rest Sect. 34. The 5. is The exposing our selves to the Papists and others by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation This is plain enough yet without wronging the scope or sence it might have been thus expressed more openly We are ashamed to mend lâ—st Men should think that we once were wrong This Reason if it prove any thing will conclude against all Reformations Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's Azariah's and Josiah's time of which before This will expose us to Baal Worshippers as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time and in Q. Elizabeth's time in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead and some other things were laid aside that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other what could they say but that some of their Superstitions were at first over-lookt which now you see the Evil of and think fit to remove them What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England It will be hard to convince those of mistake who think that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them when they see how loath they are to go too far from them This Principle seemeth to make what we have done or the first Frame of the Reformation the Rule of the Reformation rather than the Word of God Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment and next to nothing compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation It is known to them who have lookt into the History of the Council of Trent that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy that was so much desired and stickled for by some His sixth Reason is The difficulty of keeping out priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against Peoples reading Scripture The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests and willing to have their Company or so unskilful that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine from that of a Protestant or to admit Ministers among them to the Discharge of that office without Trial and Testimonials Or if he suppose that when men are allowed by Law to Worship God without Ceremonies that the Law is so laid asleep that men may do what they list If I say all these things be supposed this Reason may seem to have some weight but without such a supposition it is lighter than Chaff and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions and that they are necessary to keep out Popery Enough hath been already said to lay open the fondness of this Imagination and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare when it serveth a turn After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon he distinguisheth p. 55. between lay-Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity that he meddleth with the former not the latter his reason is If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church many Ministers would change their Mind I contract but not misrepresent what he saith To this I return two things 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse is not easily understood But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Non-conformist Ministers and their People according to the Maxime Divide impera If all the People might lawfully conform and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth lay-Lay-Communion is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds not to say Thousands of ministers many of them Eminent and most if not all of them compleatly fitted for the Work of the Gospel and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church how the Labours of all these may not be lost while the Harvest is great and the Labourers few unless it be thought that the Case is not so now and Shall they all be rendered useless rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with when it suiteth their purpose Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination yet we cannot think so of our selves and that one Principle sheweth them the greatest Schismaticks that are among Protestants for by it they unchurch most if not all the Reformed Churches and unminister all their Pastours and nullifie Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion that is joining in their Service and the use of the Ceremonies that nothing that we yet have seen is able to remove as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear He alledgeth p. 6. that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists For the sign of the Cross Mr. Baxter saith The sin if it be one in using it is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptized but the Ministers and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy To all this I answer We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old but do not for it withdraw it being the Minister's fault not Ours For Kneeling it is our own act and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it which the Church will not do or for bear the Sacrament in which it is for we utterly deny that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it neither do I see how they can and disallow other Ceremonies
for they all stand on one bottom to wit that they are not instituted but more of this in its due place For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow His Reasons in their place we shall Consider What he saith of the Crossing the Baptized Party I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it wherefore I answer That tho' it be the Ministers Action yet it is the Parties or his Representatives passion and that Personal It cannot be done on my Person or my Child 's without my Consent and Submission as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me I am culpable in reference to that Superstition So it is in this case Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon I am wholly a stranger to and can pass no Judgment on it but if this be as he saith it is no way to be justified But he should not charge the party with this There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike And if we should trouble the world with such publick Resentments of the same kind of dealings and worse that we and our way have met with and Daily do meet with not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party but from Pulpits and the Press not by the baser Phamphelteers only but famous Authors witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery we might write Books abundance His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say in that he representeth us as Depravers Raillers Back-bâ—ters Inventors of Lyes and spreaders of false Rumors and that of the best deserving men if they but come short of pleasing our humour Sect. 38. The Dr. next p. 59. taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries which I shall not stay to Consider Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness that he complaineth he hath received Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man will applaud his severe strain And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him I know not but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so dispised and his VVriting Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust it is neither so Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text of the Dr's Sermon he now waveth as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity which I think might have passed as Forreign to this purpose Sect. 39. One of his Antagonists p. 71. chargeth him with changableness in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum about which he maketh Diverse Apologies A change in this Learned Man is too visible and if it had been to the better it had not been Culpable but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Church-way I shall not meddle in that matter at this time Especially a change being upon the matter acknowledged by himself p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over That he had Asserted in his Irenicum that if others cast them wholly out of Communion then is their Separation necessary which he would reconcile with what he here writeth p. 47. by shewing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England for saith he Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication which he confesseth publick defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under ipso facto by the Canons but that it layeth on no Obligation till duely Executed But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema All this is very little to the present purpose for if we be all ipso facto Excommunicated and if this Excommunication be most frequently as it is Executed against us and capias's issued out commonly against us and all this for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity as he calleth it by these means we are de facto put in such a Case as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them and therefore we must either live without Gods Ordinances or have them out of Communion with their Church Again he Alledgeth p. 75. that he could not mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determineth That in the case of our Church men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it Neither doth this help the Matter for if we think as we do that we are bound in Conscience not to submit to all the Orders of the Church some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God and if for this Opinion and suitable Practice to it we be so excommunicated as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church then we are cast wholly out of the Church and our Separation must be Lawful on the ground that of old he had laid down But pag. 76. He would in that case allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion but not to proceed to a positive Separation But if we make use of his Allowance the Church who is of another mind putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances What can we then do but either live without them or proceed to that which he is pleased to call a positive Separation We are not convinced that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad for all the Letters that he mentioneth of which in their place And it is a rash Assertion which he knoweth cannot be Tried pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the unlawfulness of the present Separation He our Author maketh good the saying Quod misere volumus id facile credimus any man that hath seen the Vniformity in almost all things that is between our mode of Worship and their's and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England The excellent
so neither was it pulled down among us in a day King Hen. 8. began this Work but did it so lamely that Protestants were little satisfied There wanted not Non-conformists then who were all the true Protestants many of them laid down their Lives for their Non-conformity After him his Son Edw. 6. a religious and zealous Prince reformed many things but not all at once for the Liturgy was twice Reformed in his Reign Full. Ch. Hist. book 7. p. 386. once in his First Year and again in a Parliament held in his 5 6. Years and again in the Reign of Queen Elizabeth there were also some Alterations made in the Rubrick 1 Jacob. 1603. saith the same Author And it is known that several things unreformed in Edw. 6's Reign were after taken away as may be seen by comparing his Injunctions with what afterward was practised in them We have mention of Coming to Confession in Lent Art. 9. of High Mass Art. 21. Prayer for the Dead is expresly injoined in the form of bidding of Common Prayers all which were afterward removed name and thing yea these very Injunctions gave people Hope of a further Reformation for they were only intended till a Parliament should be called And Art. 27. People are injoined not to violate the Ceremonies not as yet abrogated which gave the people confidence that such Superstitions were not to be continued as a Burden to Mens Consciences but were used for the present supposed necessity Sect. 2. The Case is far otherwise with us we are put beyond all Hope of Relief a Yoke of Humane Ceremonies wreathed on our Neâ—k without any probability of being loosed from it For after the King 's happy Restauration then there was the fairest opportunity that could be wished for Condescendence and Accommodation the Ceremonies having gone into Disuetude for 20 years and the Nation being more generally against them than ever before by the Light of the Word that had for so many years been more freely and fully held forth than before and when a great number of Ministers presented a Petition for Peace to their Brethren then commissionate to Reform the Liturgy and used the strongest Reasons the most earnest Obtestations and the greatest Condescentions that could be to obtain either a taking away of what was grievous to their Consciences or at least a forbearance in them all which may be seen at length in the Book it self yet nothing was to be obtained but Impositions made more strict and our Yoke made heavier than before rather than lighter so that there remained no more Hope for our selves or our Posterity but either we and they must take up with a Worship that we are convinced is mixt with some things that maketh it displeasing to God or live without God's Ordinances or worship God apart by our selves May not we appeal to God and to all the World That whatever our Brethren talk of Peace and Vnity we were for Peace but when we spake they were for Wars Psal. 120. 6. while they will not abate nor bear with us in one Ceremony which themselves declare Indifferent for that Peace and Vnity that they extol so highly yea for the keeping out of Popery the re-entry of which they pretend to fear by our Divisions Sect. 3. These things being considered it is very evident That our Case is not parallel with that of the first Non-conformists in reference to Communion with the Church and therefore the Reasons that moved them to go along with the present way do not conclude that we ought to do the same for 1. There was then a necessity apprehended by some of the best men for retaining some of the Ceremonies that had been in use in Popery lest too sudden and visible a Change it being the out-side of Religion that the multitude doth most consider should have scared the people from owning the Reformation and we know Necessitas quicquid coegit defendit On this Ground even the Apostles retained for a time a little of the Jewish Observations Act. 15. 28 29. I do not say that there was a necessity for this but it was then thought to be and therefore must needs influence their minds and practice as if there really had been such a necessity But now it is evident to unbyassed men that there is no such necessity for retaining these Ceremonies Pâ—pists are so far from being brought over to us by symbolizing with them that they conceive Hope from that very thing of our returning to them as hath been made appear by several passages in their Writings and Discourses which I now stay not to rehearse And in very deed our Service especially in Cathedrals cometh so much nearer to their way than it doth either to the way of the Apostolick Church so far as it is recorded in Scripture or to the way of most of the Reformed Churches that it were no hard task to bring in Popish Worship abating the Service being in Latin and Discipline for in that also we are at no great distance from Popery among us without being observed by the Vulgar And the necessity is yet the less for retaining them among us that our People have not been bred in Popery as in those Times when the Ceremonies were retained and therefore are not in that hazard that they were to â—all back into Popery upon the abolishing of them yea it is so far from that that the disuse of these might make Popery to be more forgotten among the people these being some of the Ornaments by which that whorish Worship was once decked Sect. 4. A Second Ground why the reason of their cleaving to the Church-way doth not conclude for our doing the like is They had cause to look on their Grievances but as temporary and knew that further Reformation was designed and might be in a short time expected and therefore it was Reason that they should rather forbear for that time their Edification I mean the external means of it that they might have had by pure Ordinances rather than seem to make a Breach This Reason doth not at all touch us who are out of all hope of such purity of Ordinances in the Church as is pleasing to God or consistent with His Acceptance I mean from us who know the right way for I shall not judge what acceptance an impure worship invincibly not known to be such may find with God they had not in vain essayed to make Peace with their Brethren and been rejected with a peremptory â—leaving to the least Indifferent Ceremony rather than to satisfie the Consciencious Seruples of those who doubted which is our Case Therefore we are even by them who blame us for what they force us to brought to a necessity of worshipping God apart from them seeing we neither can now do it nor hope that afterward we may do it with them And this our Necessity is heightned and our Case made yet more different from theirs at the Reformation when we consider That
about all humane Ceremonies in the worship of God 2. What he saith of Mr. Rogers is a very Imperfect Representation of him for Fox Act. and Monu Vol. 3. pa. 131. the place which he citeth saith no such thing as that this was Mr. Rogers only scruple and Mr. Fuller loco citato saith the contrary Mr. Fox is telling a story of his Dissent from a Determination of the Bishops and Clergy in the Reign of Edw. 6. for wearing of Priests Caps and other Attire belonging to that order Mr. Rogers said He would not agree to that decree of uniformity unless it be also decreed that the Papists for a difference betwixt them and others should wear on their slâ—eves a Chalice with an Host upon it which sheweth his factious and resolute way of refusing that thing on that occasion rather than that he did not scruple any thing else and it hath no shew of probability that such a wise and holy man would stick at that and not at other Ceremonies that had as little warrant and were more intrinsick to Religion and worship and so less in the power of men to be Determined Sect. 7. 3. We may say the same of excellent Hooper who was long at Zurick and very dear to Bullinger and one of those that had suck'd in the Air and Discipline of the Places where they lived and were for rooting out of Ceremonies He was a Ring-leader of these and this his scrupling the Episcopal Habit is never mentioned as the whole of his Opnion about Ceremonies but is taken notice of on a particular Occasion For his after submission it was by the force of Temptation being in prison and Deserted by his patron the Earl of Warwick Fuller ubi supra p. 404. And with what reluctancy he did it see p. 405. 4. That on the review of the Liturgy in the Reign of King Edw. 6. there was little or no Dissatisfaction left at least as to the things now scrupled is still false History for that review was Anno 1547. Full. Ch. Hist. Lib. 7. p. 386. whereas 1550. he telleth us pa. 402. of two parties discovered Conformists and Non-conformists and the one against all the Ceremonies Sect. 8. That there was no separation at first he next asserteth but people tho scrupling them complyed with the use of Liturgies and Cerimonies May be it was so at the very first while Reformation was hopefull going on I have already shewed why we are not bound by such Examples I shall now Apologize for the unimitable practice of the those holy men to excuse them atanto though not atoto The glorious Change that then was wrought in the Church did so affect then engage their zealous hearts to Gods Ordinances that they did not so throughly consider as they ought the sinfulness of the Ceremonies They had got so many things reformed the evil of which was so incomparably beyond that of the Ceremonies that these seemed as nothing to them It is known that the limitted scant powers of our Souls our Understandings Affections yea our Senses are by some vehement Objects so diverted as that meaner Objects at the same time cannot move them nor be noticed by them It was much that these men discovered any evil in the Ceremonies but that the principles that the Reformation was built on led them to that to wit That Scripture is the Rule by which the Affairs of the House of God must be ordered but it is no wonder that they did not so fully discover the Evil of them nor were so affected with it as we who have had longer time and less hindrance to think on these things I am far from thinking that they had either less Light or less tenderness of Conscience than we but that their Mind and Conscience were exercised about higher Matters which we have through the Lord's goodness so settled to our hand that reforming of these is not our Work. They were imployed to do the hardest part of the Work to cast out Antichristianism it was left to others that succeeded them to cast out of the House a little of Antichrist's Furniture that had been forgotten or by minding greater things over-lookt lying in some corners of the House So that it doth no more inferr blame on us forbearing the use of the Ceremonies that they used them while they reformed the Church from Popery than it was a Blame to Hezekiah Josâ—ah and such Reformers who took away the High Places that other Reformers had left when they threw out Baal's Worship Sect. 9. This may satisfie an unbyassed mind that our non-compliance with the Liturgy and Ceremonies is consistent with all that respect that is due to those excellent Persons who in the beginning of the Reformation practised otherwise for we owe such respect to no man nor men as to reckon them infallible in Opinion or Practice Also what hath been said may take off the edge of the Dr's jeering Insinuations That these things are now such Bug-bears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such dreadful manner of the mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavâ—idably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three unsupportable Ceremonies We have little Answer to this sort of Argumentation only we say It is not Childish Fear but Conscience guided by Scripture that scareth us neither do we count these Ceremonies such as will break tho' they defile the Church but they are too heavy for our Consciences to bear and the example of men using them can yield us no ease of this Burden When the Dr. doth thus ridicule the Scruples of Conscience that his opposites pretend to have either he thinketh that an Erring Conscience is to be cured by contempt and scorn or that we do only pretend to Conscience in our Dissent The former is no sign of a good Casuist nor the latter of a good Christian for such will not judge lest they be judged He stormeth much at two Expressions of one of his Antagonists one is That it is unreasonable that Men should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of the Impossibility of Vnion Hath our Church saith he made new Terms of Communion or altered the old ones Ans. Though the Terms of Communion be not new as to the matter of them they are perpetuated on new grounds which make them now harder to be submitted to than before for they were brought in at first on a present Necessity as then was thought the Nation being Popish and ready to abandon the Reformation if that was offended Now it is not so they were continued in a Reforming time and now fixed in a time when no such thing is to be expected but rather the contrary They were retained in the Morning twi-light of the Reformation but now in the Noon-day of Gospel-light long shining among us fixed in perpetuity so that the present Prelates give a new Being to these Stumbling-blocks especially they are
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church
but held it for an Antichristian Sociâ—ty and therefore not to be communicated with Aâ—d that of the Independents who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches but thought it unlawful to join with them because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints that was among them Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists and that of the second by the Assembly of Divines and other Presbyteriâ—ns Both these were active separation chosen by the separating Parties and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church that aâ—e indefensible But our Separation if it may be so called is passâ—ve we are driven away we seek the Communion of our Brethren we are willing to bear wiâ—h many things that are a Burden to us and which we wish to be reformed rather than have Separate Meetings We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ the Petition for Peace is a publick and authentick witness of all this but our Brethren will have no Communion with us unless we will own the Ceremonies that they without any warrant from Scripture impose on us which we cannot do without sinning against God and wounding our Consciences and we can and do give good Reâ—son and Scripture-warrant for this our Scruple Let then any Indifferent Person judge Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the publick Worship of the Church by the Authority of them who condemned these fore-mentioned Separations But occaâ—â—on will be given to discourse this Matter further wherefore I now forbâ—ar Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi running through the whole Texture of it and that it doth not tâ—uch the Question in hand but I shall take a more particular yet transient view of it He saith Sect. 8. at the beginning The Separation being now bâ—gâ—n the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemenâ—y against it If the Dr. would prove any thing against us he must shew That there was no forbearing of publick Ordinances on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists before this the contrary of which I have shewed Also That it was Separation on that account and no other that they wrote against the contrary of which is most evident He may know that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation and can make it appear that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice It seemeth by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker that the Separation was charged on him as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles just as it is now with us If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride the two Characters given by Parker to the Separatists let the Guilty bear their blame But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with import no such thing and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general is not Brotherly dealing We love not to recriminate Sect. 9. He alledgeth p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood against the Separation Three of them were taken out of the Admonition given in by the Non-conformists to the Parliament He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were as very ridiculous men who laid down Reasons for Separation and yet were so much against other mens practising what they gave Reason for If he think them such men why would he bind us to their Authority which is the tendency of this long Discourse But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter His Mistake is In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances to be redressed not as Grounds of Separation His Misrepresentation is These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry Government and Worship as wholly unlawful antichristian and false for they owned the Ministry and Worship whatever thoughts they had of the Government as right for the substance tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them which they desired to be removed It is true Gilford saith they make a vile Schism rending themselves from the Church of England but doth he not add And condemning by their Assertioâ—s the whole visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time Which sheweth that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with but nullifying of Churches because of some Corruptions in them Gilford's words that follow p. 29. we are not concerned in We know that many were the sad effects of that Separation diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion to Janglings And it is not without this effect on some where the oppressed Party is Innocent as to the main but that proveth not that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies to shun this Evil but that they should not be imposed on us As to Gilford's blaming them for not coming to the Book-Prayers this he spake without Book either in the heat of Disputation in which many do over-reach or it was his Opinion but is not ours I agree with Gilford That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian not we who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship That Gilford was a Non-conformist the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove That all Non-conformists are fallible men and some of them mistaken in some things we willingly grant We also close with what his next Author saith p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church where he is by Providence placed and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church only with this Exception Unless that Church require me to sin and if I will not do so exclude me Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention that not belonging to the thing then controverâ—ed It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases not yet thought on may afford The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard and the Confutation of the Errours of the Separatists dâ—ne in name of the Non-conformists so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor 's is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 10. He thinketh Sect. 9. to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies with the Separation of the Brownists for if that be not desigâ—ed I know not what his Discourse tendâ—th to by setting down the concessions of these Separatists to wit That the Doctrine of the Church of England is sound and saving that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church So far we agree But they pleaded saith he that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such as overthrew the
reckoned among them Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy at his pleasure we can bear it In this we are Murus Aheneus in the Poets Seâ—se Sect. 13. He telleth us p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson the Foâ—nder as he maketh him of the Independent way who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer He should have told us who these are It is true they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too by denying us all Church Privileges for not submitting to the Impositions and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances where we can have them in his way but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice This Discourse against the Independent Separation I meddle not with and therefore pass over all that he saith from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages What Mr. Câ—n saith p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation is so far True that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies doth inferr on them who act conscientiously that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church than own the one or use the other And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions a Word the Dr. is very angry with because unordained men were not suffered to Preach when and where they listed is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions when they are Excluded the Church for not using Humane Ceremonies In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture no imposing in the other That is imposed to be done which is without warrant yea condemned in Scripture Such mean â—rtifices the Dr. reacheth at that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill in the VVorship of God. p. 58 he saith Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience Who ever said otherwise or can say otherwise unless they would first burn their Bibles We never made Conscience the Rule it must be guided and ruled by Scripture What he saith of Popular Government let them answer it who are concerned He saith Humorous and Factious People will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions This Title of Mr. A's Book is a great Eye-sore to him but he should consider that on the other hand an Imperious Superstitious Clergy that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance in dispite of the Apostles Words will always be Imposing and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious He saith the Principles of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead men into Confusion Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions are more like to lead Divines into Confusion in managing their polemick Discourses Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience Hath Conscience no use but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will or what the Act of Parliament saith We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience as the Dr. is but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience is liker to lead Men into Atheism than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion Let Conscience then have Liberty where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion where they that profess Conscience are otherwise sober and peaceable and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience It is a more innocent thing where it is rightly dealt with than the Dr. taketh it to be and we think it is more to be regarded than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising It is false that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants as to the pretence of Conscience nor they the Anabaptists For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes because of their Conscience Sect. 14. He telleth us Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren with being the occasion of an inundation of Error by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience I am far from justifying that Toleration which the Independants pleaded for and which by their means some say was used in our late times of Distraction Then there was no King in our Israel All Error should be opposed Gross Error punished and restrained by force But will it hence follow that we must not have leave to Dissent even from those things that the Church imposeth without Warrant from the Lord All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth p. 59 60 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration The Vniformity in Religion that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of is not to be understood of Words in Prayers and Humane Ceremonies for would they not then have first setled that way at home but of Doctrine and Discipline and Worship so far as commanded by Christ. Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates that were between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship but what was commanded They left the Church for supposed Corruptions which were none of their personal fault nor were they put under a necessity of approving them VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin if we should do them But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates p. 73 74. The 1st is That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look on Separation from it as Sin notwithstanding its Corruptions This he thinketh he hath so proved that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed and with what measure of clearness let others judge also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters hath been shewed The 2d Conclusion is That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church to go so far as they were able So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful is
necessity of Separation Ans. 1. The Dr. then maketh no difference between a Scruple that hath ground for it and one that hath none If he can make our Scruple appear to be groundless as he confesseth theirs to be he hath advantage against us Ans. 2. Is there no difference between having probable grounds for a Scruple and having no such grounds Is there any comparison between scrupling at using Religious Ceremonies that have no warrant in the word but are in general at least condemned in it and scrupling at some pretended Corruptions that no Scripture Condemneth Ans. 3. If the Dr's reasoning be good either we must bear with none that scruple unless we scruple the same thing Or we must bear with all that Scruple The first of these excludeth all Christian forbearance the last he will not alledge Ans. 4. He mentioneth Impositions as to Order and Discipline only that we may seem Imposers as well as his party is that is unreasonable not only because we can shew Christ's Laws for our Order and Discipline which he will not pretend to shew for the Ceremonies But also because we can bear with sober and faithful Brethren that cannot approve of all that we do which his Party will not Sect. 20. He mistaketh the Case when he insinuateth That we have no more but scruple of Conscience to plead The Dr. should not have alledged this till he or some of his party had answered all our Reasons of Scrupling in many Books neither touched by him or any other But now he will Knock down our cause with one blow He saith he put the Case as clear as possible to prevent all Subterfuges and slight Evasions He supposeth five scrupling Parties one at the Liturgy a Second at the Cross and Kneelling a Third at wrong gathered Churches a Fourth at Infant Baptism a Fifth at Preaching by set Forms and being stinted by an Hour-glass And he saith the Nature of the Case doth not vary according to these If this be the Dr's Herculean Argument we shall not need to fear his Strength so much as before Surely the Learned Dr's parts could let him see more Reason to bear with sober and intelligent men who dare not join with a Church in worshipping God by Religious Ceremonies not instituted by Christ than with Fantastick Quakers who cast off God's Ordinances because of an Hour-glass but that his prejudice doth in this darken his understanding But the Tendency of his Discourse seemeth to be either Church-Authority must lead us Blind-fold so as we must scruple nothing imposed or neither Scripture nor Reason shall limit our Fancy but we may scruple what we will. He saith well p. 76. and the Non-conformists before him had said it If they alledge Grounds to justifie themselves they must do it ex natura rei and not from the meer errour or mistake of Conscience We will most willingly join issue with him on this Condition provided the natura rei may be judged by Scripture as all the Worship of God should be If he can prove the Ceremonies that we scruple to be such as we may use without Sin or if we prove not the contrary let him call us as vile Separatists as he pleaseth If the Dr. had pleased at first to hang the matter on this Pin and not to have filled his Book with so many Citations to strengthen his Cause with Humane Authority he might have saved both himself and me all this labour that hitherto we have been at It is no great commendation either of the wisdom or of the sobriety of his Church that he saith Shâ— hath as much occasion cause he should have said to judge their the Presbyterians scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Quakers What followeth about occasional communion is answered above That which he citeth out of Mr. A. of the Assemby's being transported in the heat of Dispute is not so derogatory from that venerable Meeting as he would make it It is rare to find it otherwise with sinful men How many things did thus slip from the Pens of several of the Fathers that the Dr. will not approve But we do not hereby give up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren nor forsake the Assemblies Principles it is one thing not to approve all that men say and another thing to condemn the Cause that they plead for Sect. 21. Our Author doth next undertake Sect. 17. to shew how we have deserted the Principles of the old Non-conformists as to private Persons reforming Church-Discipline setting up new Churches and the preaching of Ministers when silenced by the Laws For the setting up of Churches and Discipline he citeth several Non-conformists against it without the Magistrate p. 78 79 80 81 82. To all which I answer That two things are expresly in these Citations that make what they condemned not to reach our Case For 1. They condemn private mens endeavouring a publick Reformation that belonging to the Magistrate so it is thrice expressed p. 81. out of Confut. of the Brownists Now we meddle not with a publick Reformation otherwise than by our Prayers and Advice as we have occasion which is there also expresly allowed by them but content our selves to serve God privately when we cannot do it publickly without Sin. To this same purpose is that which is cited out of Giffard p. 79. That tho' every one ought to keep a good Conscience yet no private Persons are to take on them publick Authority to reform If we do so blame us for it 2. These Non-conformists all along speak of private Persons reforming the Discipline of the Church Now what is done among us of that kind is done by Ministers who though in the State they are private persons and therefore are not to meddle with matters of that concern Yet in the Church they are publick persons and have Authority from God to dispense his Ordinances But I do not by what I have said intend to homologate all that the Dr. citeth out of these Non-conformists several things they assert that cannot well be defended but I shall not digress so far as to particularize them Sect. 22. I shall only say That had this Principle of not reforming the Ordinances of Christ by People among themselves till the Magistrate gave countenance taken alwaies place in the World not only Christianity had not come in the place of Judâ—ism but Arrianism had extinguished the Orthodox Profession Have we not Examples of People who were under Arian Bishops setting up new Bishops over themselves in Epiphan Haeres 73 Doth not Hilary exhort the People to separate from Auxentius their Arian Bishop adversus Arianos when yet there was no Orthodox Magistrate to countenance these things Yea had this Principle obtained there had been no Reformation from Popery in most places where now through the Lord's mercy it is Say not that our reforming of Worship and Discipline is not in things of that moment for tho' that be true yet it is not of
of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets not to the People As for Pastors not now to be Elected but obtruded on the people and sâ—tled among them tho' in an undue way I shall not say that it is the Peoples part to separate meerly for the Insufficiency of the Minister if the Ordinances be Administred so as they can partake of them without Sin. That which can warrant withdrawing must be a Depravation of the Ordinances and that such as importeth my personal Action in partaking of that depravation of the Ordinance and not every defect or fault either of the Minister or the Ordinance What Mr. B. saith of peoples Duty to get the best supply they can which the Dr. taxeth him for is not meant of dâ—ferting or separating from a Parish meerly on Accompt of the defective Qualiâ—â—cations of the Minister but either of Occasional Communion with a better supplied Society which if the Dr. do altogether condemn he should Preach against the Throngs that resort to him and leave others under whose particular charge they are Or when withdrawing is founded on other good Grounds that people should chuse better qualified Pastors than those they leave What he saith himself must Explain and Defend What Mr. B. further saith of the warrantable Preaching of Silenced Ministers and of the Magistrates imposing Pastors obliging people to adhere to and own these and forsake their own Pastors settled among them in the way of the Gospel come afterward to be debated and hath in part been spoken to above Sect. 5. Argument 3d. They give directions to the People what sort of Ministers they should own and what not And doth not the Scripture so too We Affirm people to have a Judgment of Discretion both of their Pastors to be Elected and also of the Doctrine and Administrations of their Pastors already in possession of the chaâ—ge of their Souls And yet that they are not to separate from the latter for any defect save that which doth so vitiate the Ordinances as that it is their Sin to join in them And if the Dr. will not allow them this Judgment as he seemeth to deny it by his Sarcasm of which saith he to wit utter Insufficiency and Heresie the People are admirable Judges he must introduce implicite Faith and Obedience And by this Doctrine it had been a Sin in the People even to have left Rome it self for were not they admirable Judges of the Heresie and Idolatry of that Church He that chargeth other mens way so fiercely with a Tendency to Popery should take heed of giving ground for such a Reflection to be made on himself Our Lord doth not speak with such Contempt of the People as this Learned Dr. doth He saith My Sheep hear my Voice and they know not the Voice of strangers Joh. 10. 27. and 5. to deny this Spirit of discerning to the People of God is to make them Sheep in a literal Sense that men may Rule over them as Beasts I see not such Inconsistency in Mr. B's Words as the Dr. would make us believe while he speaketh p. 123. of withdrawing from the utterly Insufficient and Heretical and p. 124. that people are not warranted to withdraw for a Ministers personal Faults nor for his ministerial Faults while his ministration is not utterly untolerable if the Dr. can shew either the Falshood or Inconsistency of these Assertions we shall own it He also wrongeth Mr. B. and the Non-conformists while p. 124. he telleth us of Mr. B's outcries against the People as Heady Rash Câ—nsorious Proud Ignorant such as are ready to Scorn and Vill fy the Gravest and Wisest Preachers And hence He the Dr. inferreth that such are unfit to discern the Qualifications of Ministers I ask the Dr. if ever Mr. B. said that the People were all or generally such We deny not there are too many that deâ—erve severe Reproofs for such things and Mr. B. hath not been too sparing in his Censures of them but is there any shadow of reason for inâ—erring thence That all the People should be deprived of the Right that Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed to them It were as reasonable to say that because many men Misguide or Debauch away their Estates therefore no man should haâ—e the Power of managing his Estate Christ hath provided Discipline and Authority in his House to Curb the Extravâ—gancy of such persons and to restrain the Power of Election when it is mis-managed as is above-said And he needed not the Dr's and tâ—e â—â—elates device to prevent this mischief by putting the power of Election into the Hands of a Patron who may be a Papist Atheist or Enemy to Godliness and so less fit to chuse one to take the charge of mens Souls than any of the Persons described Sect. 6. And if Mr. B. say That the heady Persons mentioned are commâ—nly the most violent and will judge in spite of the rest Yet the Remedy that I have mentioned is for restraining of them and is like to do it betâ—eâ— than what the Dr. is for can do Neither doth Mr. B. nor any of us allow these heady persons to be the decisive Judges either of who of his side or who of our side are true and sufficient Ministers Which the Dr. might have known and so spaâ—ed much of his discourse which I shall not Transcribe That which Mr. B. telleth of many young rare injudicious Preachers in England was never look'd on as sufficient ground of Separation by it sâ—lf as the Dr. insinuateth But it is a sad grievance and these men withal imposing sinful Terms of Communion on the people for who greater Zealots for Liturgy and Ceremonies than they and there being many faithful and qualified Ministers laid aside from their publick work is it any wonder that people leave the one and cleave to the other The Ground that I have already laid down will justifie our withdrawing from the Ministers even in London however Grave and Learned they be and however Capacious their Churches be For even their sinful Terms of Communion are imposed Sect. 7. He alledgeth Sect. 9. That by this means Separation cannâ—t be kept out of any Church whatsoever This is true if the Dr. have liberty to make our opinion to be what he pleaseth to have it that he may the better refute it But if our opinion be rightly understood and if we be heard speak for our selves it is most false I hope there are Churches where the Ministers generally are sound in Doctrine and mix nothing with God's Ordinances as Terms of â—ommunion with them that is unlawful In a Word There are Churchâ—s where tho' Ministers be not faultless yet the ordinances are pure or if there be any thing amiss in the Ordinances people are not required to own it peâ—sonally From such we will not withdraw He bringeth Four Qualities that Mr. B. required in Ministers the want of which may warrant to withdraw from them Tolerable Knowledge That they be
the Magistrate to protect those that did break off from them but to suppress them who should have done so and would not If he will not own this he doth more to over-throw the Reformation than all that he can charge Non-conformists with can amount to We are far from questioning the Magistrates Power over Ministers to inflict civil Punishments on them if he do it on good Grounds he is approved of God if otherwise he must answer to him for it But our Magistrates do not own any power of inflicting Church-censures by themselves whatever some Flatters do on their behalf The Objection from the Old Non-conformists I have answered above By what hath been said it will appear whether he saith truly p. 137. That not one word of our Plea but might equally serve the Papists Sect. 18. What followeth p. 137 138 and 139 of the Peoples Power of chusing their Pastors and the Nullity of their Title to that Charge without the Peoples Consentt he Dr. it seems thinks that Recitasse is Refutasse for he saith no more to disprove it but Asserteth That it layeth a Foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Separations which we deny And enough I have said above to evince the contrary He maketh another of our Grounds of Separation to be the Persecution of the Prelatists and their having a Hand in silencing of Ministers This we disown Indeed their Persecution for our not submitting to their Impositions is a Barr by which we are forcibly kept out of the Church but it is not the motive that determineth us to leave the Church we are willing to wait on Gods Ordinances even Administred by them that persecute us if they will suffer us to do it on sinless Terms And if Mr. B. whom he only citeth in this matter mean any thing else I cannot answer for him SECT III. Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church AFter Examination of other Pleas for Non-conformity the Dr. cometh Sect. 13. to examine that which he confesseth to be the most colourable Plea that hath yet been used to wit their imposing of unlawful Terms of Communion with them And this I look on as not only the most colourable Plea but is the causa sine quo non that without which no Separation can be made from a True Church which is sound in the Faith without Sin and as the very Foundation of that Cause that I now plead and if the Dr. can beat us out of this Hold we shall become his willing Proselites Let us hear then how he taketh this Plea from us Sect. 2. His first assault is by a distinction which is really true but very ill managed tho' by amost Learned hand but the Dr. being Master of so much Learning as few men are doth I suppose sometimes make him consider less what he writeth than they find need to do who move in an inferiour Orb. His distinction is between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fansied to be so through Prejudice and wilful Ignorance or Error of Conscience That there are some Terms of Communion with a Church really sinful and others that are not so tho' they be fansied by some to be so I think none ever doubted and therefore the Dr. might have better imployed his pains to say nothing of his Ink and Paper that he hath taken to prove this by a multitude of instances And I grant that when the sinfulness of the Terms is only fansied the Sin of Schism that followeth on that apprehension lieth not on the Imposers but on those that separate Only I must add an Exception of a Case in which it may lie on both that is when the thing imposed is unnecessary and is made a ground of Separation by the mistake of persons otherwise orthodox and sober and who pretend to no other cause of Separation If the Imposers will not yield in that case that is the wiser to the more wilful they shew not that moderation nor love to Peace that they should If the Quakers could be gained by forbearing preaching by an Hour-glass the Dr's instance I would think it hard to lose them for that for whom Christ lost his Life Sect. 3. As the Dr. manageth this distinction it is hard to tell what to make of it for he confoundeth two things that are most distinct yea different to wit Terms of Communion plainly sinful and Terms of Communion in themselves sinful And in the other Lemma of the distinct on he hath set nothing in opposition to plainly for fansied to be sinful through Prejudice wilful Ignorance Error of Conscience are all opposite to those that are sinful in themselves He should then have told us if Terms of Communion imposed be sinful in themselves but not plainly but only obscurely so what censure he would pass on them that could not comply with them also what degree of plainness he would require about the sinfulness of imposed Terms of Communion that it might be lawful to Separate rather than yield to them My opinion is that if Terms of Communion be imposed that are in themselves and really sinful and if the sinfulness of them can be known by diligent searching of the Scripture and depending upon God for Light and Guidance tho' there be not such plainness as the Dr. had above called glaring Evidence that all the world may see they that are consciencious ought to withdraw from any Church whatsoever rather than submit to those Terms There is an Ambiguity in the Term that he useth In themselves sinful for I know that it is their usual Plea for the Ceremonies the imposed Terms of Communion now under debate that they are things in themselves indifferent This may either be understood that they are in their general nature such which we grant Habits and Postures and Gestures importing neither good nor evil as such Or as considered under the circumstances that they are cloathed with as they fall under our debate and so we think them sinful Now the Dr. should have told us whether he meaneth of Terms of Communion that are things imposed which are really evil under the circumstances with which they are imposed or Terms of Communion which are things in their general nature evil We think the sinfulness of Terms of Communion even in the former and not only in the latter sence may warrant our withdrawing Sect. 4. He telleth us That the Magistrate of Church may lawfully determine and impose Time and Place and such-like circumstances of Worship which we grant tho' we think it inconvenient to be rigorous in these Impositions or too frequent and universal in them but about these our Question is not conversant Therefore if any Separate from these Impositions he saith the Sin of Separation is on their part This we do not deny We also grant his Hypothetick Proposition that followeth to wit If other things be as much in the Magistrate or Church's Power they sin who separate because of
form of worship and if there be where is it forbidden but in this Commandment Or let him give us any reason why Humane Inventions relating to the manner and form of worship are not forbidden as well as these that relate to the way of it A Reason indeed he pretendeth to give Otherwise saith he all Vse of Mens inventions as to preaching reading interpreting Scripture would be forbidden and then this interpretation of the second Command would be unlawful because it is a meer invention of Man as much as Liturgies and Ceremonies If this be to reason like a Divine or to quibble like a Sophister let the Reader judge for the Invention that men make use of in preaching c. is the act or exercise of their faculties whereby they find out the mind of God The inventions in God's worship that we â—ow debate about are Objects found out by Men not commanded by God. If Men devise unrevealed Objects in Reading Preaching c. we condemn them in that as well as in devising ways of worshipping God And if the Dr. mean that this exposition of the second Commandment is an invention of Man that is the exercise of his inventive Faculty whereby he findeth out the Mind of God he speaketh wide from the purpose when he compareth that with things that men devise to worship God by If he mean That the Interpretation is only devised not warranted let him prove that and we shall reject it Sect. 12. I hope by this time the impartial Reader may judge whether we stretch and force Scripture to condemn Liturgies and Ceremonies as the Dr. saith or he doth so to defend them That he imputeth to us blinding and fettering our minds by Education and reading but one sort of Books and taking things for granted which we ought not we resolve to bear patiently and must accept of these instead of better Arguments to refute our Principle His instance of the deniers of Infant-Baptism proveth fully that the Schism doth not alwaies lie on the Imposer's side tho' they separate from us because of our using it without considering imposing it on them VVho of them have been excommunicated for not using it as we are for forbearing the Ceremonies If men will separate because the Ordinances of God are imposed on them let them answer it we scruple only the Ordinances of Man Neither did we ever say that the blame of separation doth in all câ—ses lie on the Imposers And we confess that where imposâ—d Terms of Communion are scrupled through mistake they that separate on that scruple do sin And we yield also to him that not the pretence of Conscience but sufficient proof of the unlawfulness of the Terms of Communion is a good ground of Separation and we still desire that the matter may be put to that issue Sect. 13. He proceedeth next to set â—orth the principles of them who hold all Acts of Communion with the Church of England unlawful of them he hath little to say their mind as he saith being easily discovered and we are not concerned in that opinion and therefore shall not insist on it Only I see not on what grounds the Dr. nameth the Author of the Book called Jerubbaal as one that is against the lawfulness of hearing the conforming Ministers preach for that Author 〈◊〉 p. 12. of himself and others whom Mr. C. had charged with Schism because they could not communicate with Her in the Liturgy that they joined with Her in the instituted VVorship and substantial Ordinances of Christ as Prayer Hearing of the Word preached singing of Psalms c. SECT IV. The Dr's stating of the Question Examined and the Question truly Stated THE several Principles of the Dissenters having been examinedâ— the Dr. now proceedeth to state the Question about Separation Some think this should have been done before examining of the Principles on which men separate but the Dr. must use his own method and we must follow him in examining what he saith He giveth us Sect. 15. his Concessions which I shall say little of save to make a Remark on one or two of them And 1. His third Concession is He can allow different modes of Worship in Cathedral and Parochial Churches in publick and private Administrations these being allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live but What is this saith he to the denying of constant Communion with our Churches to the chusing of new Pastors It is true these are two different things the difference is the one is allowed by the Church the other not so But consider the things in themselves and abstracted from the Churches pleasure and there will appear to be as little Vniformity between Cathedral and Parochial Worship as between their Parochial Worship and that used in the Meetings of the Dissenters Now we gladly would know of the Dr. or any of his Party seeing the Church can yield so far to Parochial Assemblies as not to tie them to the same Modes with Cathedral Assemblies because they cannot go to the expence of it And seeing the Church dispenseth with crossing in prâ—vate Baptism why may She not condescend so far to the Dissenters who cannot for their Consciences use these things and so shun this Breach in the Church this denying of Communion with their Churches and chusing of new Pastors Are the Consciences of men so little to be regarded or Is it fit the Church should be so imperious over her Members as that She will indulge Mens Purses but not their Consciences She will dispense with the sign of the Cross for Her pleasure but not for peoples consciences when they can shew good reason for what they think and make conscience of This is wholly unaccountable and very inconsistent with those high pretentions that our Brethren make of regard to Peace and Unity Sect. 2. Another remark I make of his 4th Concession That the Church alloweth a different mode of Worship to Foreign Churches set up in England because they break not off Communion with the Church of England as they do who were Baptized in it But why may not the Church be as kind to her own Members as to Strangers if the Ceremonies be necessary why should the neglect of them be permitted to any If unnecessary why should they be forced on mens Consciences to the Rending of the Church The breaking off of Communion that he talketh of may be prevented by this Condescendency and therefore it is most unreasonable to charge us with that as a Sin which we are under a Necessity to do for shunning the wounding of our Consciences and sinning against God and which they might as easily prevent by shewing us that Favour that they shew to others I take notice also of his 6th Concession That it was no sinful Separation to keep up the Exercise of True Religion under Arians against the will of the Magistrate But what is this to our Case where true Doctrine is taught It is very much to our Case for
the reason why the Orthodox might Worship God apart from the Arians was because it had been their sin to join in corrupted Worship though we do not equal the owning of the Arian Doctrine and using the Ceremonies yet we reckon the one to be Sin as really as the other and we may not commit a smaller Sin to enjoy Communion with a Church more than we may commit a greater Sin for that end And we are not obliged to live without the Ordinances of God when we cannot have them with the Church without Sin more than the Oxthodox were who lived under the Arians Sect. 3. Tho' the Dr. it seems had designed this Section for stating of the Question upon which his whole Book is founded I see no formal Stating of it Concessions are but preparatory to the Stating of a Controversie except that he saith he had told Mr. B. that all our dispute was whether the upholding separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine Established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a sinful Separation or not This is no sufficient stating of the Controversy between the Prelatists and Dissenters about Separation Two things in it are not sufficiently clear and some things needful to be minded in our present Controversy are left out The First thing that is not clear is That he will not allow any fault in Doctrine to justifie Separation but what is in the Established Doctrine that is either that which is contained in the Churches confession of Faith or is setled by Law. But it is evident there may be such faults in Doctrine as may make them that regard their Souls Health withdraw from a Church which are not here comprehended that is when gross Errors are commonly taught contrary to the Doctrine contained in the Publick Confession of Faith and which is Established by Law That this is a Case supposeable yea that it ought to have been supposed with reference to our Controversy appeareth in that it is most common in England for Ministers who have subscribed the 39. Articles to teach Doctrines quite contrary to them as I observed above It is no rarity for unconscientious men to subscribe to whatever is imposed rather than lose a Benefice and mean while to Hold and Teach what they please notwithstanding of such Subscription Now if a Church should become so corrupt that Heresie is commonly taught though the Orthodox Faith be Established ought not People to withdraw from that Church Or if many teach dangerous Doctrine contrary to established Truth ought not People withdraw from such Teachers Especially when there is no way to get this unsound teaching removed or restrained Sect. 4. Another thing in the Dr's State of the Question is unclear to wit That where the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be right there should be no Separation What he meaneth by these is a Controversy it self and he is at a great deal of Pains to clear what he meaneth by this Term Part. 3. p. 334. whither I referr the Debate with him about it But what if any part of Worship be unlawful call it Substantial or Circumstantial or what he will Or what if something be Annexed to the True Worship of God which is sinful but yet so peremptorily imposed as none shall worship God without it I ask the Dr. whether in this case we may separate though we scruple not any part of that worship that he is pleased to call Substantial Worship Sect. 5. Some things are also left out by the Dr. in his Stating of the Controversy which were needful to have been minded As 1st To clear what he meaneth by Separation I have above shewed that sometimes they that are charged with Separation are meerly Passive in it sometimes they are Active The First is when the Church casteth them out because they cannot submit to her Impositions The Second when they take offence at something in the Church and therefore leave her but are not cast out by her but have free and peaceable Access to all her Ordinances In the first Case which is ours if they causlesly scruple at the Impositions they may be charged with Ignorance or Errour of Conscience or Peevishness and Willfulness but how they can be charged with Separation I know not more than a Banished Man can be blamed as a Fugitive from his Country And if they have good cause to scruple the Impositions I see not how any blame can be fixed on them at all 2. He should have shewed whether by Separation he meaneth casting off all ties to have Communion with that Church more than with another Church that professeth the true Faith as a Man or Company that live in Holland have no more Tie to Communicate in England than in France c. or a present forbearing of Communion because of sinful Terms with owning an Obligation to communicate with this Church when these Bars shall be removed In the one case all relation to that Church in particular is cast off in the other not so It is but a suspending the Exercise of Communion as a Church-member not a disowning it or casting it off Sect. 6. He is defective in mentioning no other alledged grounds of Separation but false Doctrine Established or wrong substantial parts as he calleth them of Worship He knoweth little of the Controversy that he manageth if he knew not that other grounds are alledged and therefore it had been fair to have fixed the Question on them whether it be lawful to separate on such and such grounds It is true his question may include all the grounds that can be alledged beside the two mentioned but that which is the main Hinge of our Controversy should have been mentioned in stating of the Question 4. It being confessed on both Hands that there is a sinful Separation it should have been one part of his question where the Sin of this Separation is chargeable whether on the Imposers or the Scruplers of those things that cause the Separation But he is willing to set his Church beyond all imaginable blame and to put the Question only whether the Dissenters have any blame or not 5. It should not have been omitted to enquire whether the Grounds alledged for Separation lie in things really Evil or only fanâ—ied to be such And again whether the Evil of them be such as will bear the weight of Separation Sect. 7. I shall then endeavour to state the Question more fully and clearly than the Dr. hath done There are indeed divers questions on which this question about Separation doth depend and therefore our Controversy cannot be represented in one single question to which an Affirmative or Negative Answer will suffice It is then 1. A great part of our Controversy seeing the Liturgy as to the Frame of it and Ceremonies are by the Clergy thought indifferent and so unnecessary That God may be acceptably Worshipped without them and the
Communion They separate because the Church is polluted with these We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these we think the fault of other men I mean in things of that nature no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church so that in effect they go away from the Church We are driven away by the Church Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church is It weakâ—neth the Câ—use of the Reformation This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines and he beginneth with Calvin whose words too long here to be transcribed do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful because of lesser Impurities or great Faults while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her yea he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181 182. and being anathematized for not complying with these Corruptions a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome which is parallel to our case But saith the Dr. he doth not mean indifferent Rites Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites but sinful Ceremonies And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of Enâ—land with that of Rome as â—o causes of Separation yet here there is a likeness the one rejecteth some of her Members because they will not sin with her and will force her Impositions on their Consciences and so doth the other Another Author he citeth is Daillie giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them And what need was there to mention them when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly if the differences had been such as we might safely have yielded to then Separation had been rash and unjust So say we for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship as we cannot to that which is greater to wit idolatrous Worship Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus who saith If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in Her Communion Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England for these and such-like faults We refuse the use of these and because of that the Church casteth us out of Her Communion And if Amyrald us say That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema we leave him to his own Sentiments in that but are of another opinion It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies when they are compared with these Romish Abominations but when we consider them by themselves and compare them with Scripture we cannot think so of them The Dr. further urgeth us with the Answers given by Claude Paion and Turretine to the Book entituled Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies this is both false and inconcludent It is false for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church because of their Ceremonies One of the chief Objects saith he that presented it self to our Fathers was that of the great number of the Ceremonies which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship making it look partly like Judaism and partly like Heathenism He saith It was without doubt a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and much more to that purpose What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head I know not for I have not seen them This Argument is also inconcludent because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery Sect. 5. One passage he citeth p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine that no tolerable superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience are sufficient grounds of Separation And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by fâ—lse Doctrine To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation And I deny not that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable to wit where men will use them and do not impose them on others They that are left to their liberty may well tolerate others in the use of them but I do not so well see that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience for Superstition is Sin and no Sin is tolerable in that case To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer That it is absolutely false and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof for that I may not deny as he asserteth without reason 1. A Superstitious Riâ—e is one of the Traditions of Men in the Worship of God and that the Scripture doth simply condemn without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisâ—ical Washings were enforced with but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness Mat. 15. 6 9. but of this afterward 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Riâ—e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will make it to defile the Conscience as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine If this Doctrine were true men might impose what they will in the Worship of God they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used or Papists either if they keep but orthodox mind and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites but only sic volo sic jâ—beo To what purpose he citeth le Blanch shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists I see not but that many Names of Authors make a shew and it argueâ—h great reading for he saith not one word of the â—eremonies and we all know that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England but those of Rome it self yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds Sect. 6. It was needful that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations home to his purpose which every Reader could hitherto hardly â—iscern how it should be done Wherefore p. 185. he telleâ—h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by but the things that we now scruple And he telleth us how we would be laughed at all
over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should
Priest that is opeâ—ly so yet he may present a Protestant in Masquerade or one of the meanest of men for parts and other qualities of a Minister which it is known they often do when yet the Law of the Land can haâ—dly reâ—ch the Man. And a Debauched Patron may present one who will not reprove him too severely who yet may have qualifications to satisfie the Law. But the dissenâ—ions that arise among a divided people may be remedied by Church Dâ—scipline or if they break out into external disorders by the Magistrate 3. Bâ—cause saith he other reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable preteâ—ce Answ. Mens Authority must not preponderate with us against that of Christ. He proveth what he saith 1. By Beza declaiming against popular Election see this in Bâ—z Ep. 83. Answ. Beza speaketh only against Election by the people without their Church-guides to manage them in that action The Lutheran Churches that he next addeth are no Examples to us Their way is much applauded by the Church of England men much more then the way of Englâ—nd is by them For as Pezel melâ—fic â—ist part 3. p. 345. observeth none did more fiercely persecute the Exiles in Qu. Mary's days than they did in Denmark Lubeck Rostoch and especially at Hamburgh The Salvo of the Synod of Dort shewâ—th that they did not allow Patronages but must proceed warily in removing them which hath been the case of other Churches but maketh against the Doctâ—r's opinion not foâ— it That the Ministers in France or the Council of State at Genâ—va chuse Ministers and obtrude them on the people without their consent we deny Sect. 28. I have by what is said preoccupied most of the Doctor 's Reasons against Mr. B. contained Sect. 26. I shall only take notice of a few things We make void no Laws about Patronage but so far as they respect the peoples right of chusing a pastor for their Souls and thus far they are cassate by the Laws of â—hrist As to Temple and Tythes as he speaks we medle not with Laws about them only we wish the removing of them as a Griâ—vance and that Rulers would provide for the Church in a way that the peoples right of Elâ—ction might not be hindered nor restrained in its Exercise Mr. B. objecteth p. 330. That the Patron by giving a right to Temple and Tythes doth not make the man a Minister to that peopleâ— Souls and the Parliament cannot dispose of peoples Souls The Doctor instead of an Answer giveth the meaning of this that if the people be humersome and factious they may run after whom they please in opposition to Laws This is ad populum fâ—lâ—ras but no fair way of Arguing The true meaning is that though the Paâ—non by Law may give a man a title to the Temple and Tythes and the people can neither keep him out of the Church nor deny to pay his dues yet the Law cannot make him their Pastor without their consent I do not say they should run after another it is fit they should consent to a tolerable person so imposed on them for peace sake yet it is not the Law but their consent that maketh him their Minister That Anabaptists Quakâ—rs and Papists will put in for a share in this priviledge is but a mâ—an objection for Christ hath given people power to chuse sound Pastors not whom they will. The Doctor asketh Whether all must have equal Votes then the worst who are the most part will chuse one like themselves Answ. This is to be regulated by the Guides of the Church the worst are to be instructed yea and censured if need be and if they chuse a bad man the Pastors are not to ordain him He alledgeth few are competent Judges Answ. Many can judge tolerably and they who cannot are to be guided by others but the matter is not wholly left to their judgment the Elected man being to be tryed by the Eldership He enlargeth on the tumulâ—s and strifs in popular Elections This hath been abundantly answered above That the matter is devolved on a few doth not take away the right of others who are willing to be advised by these few The Doctor is as certain that Christ never gave people such an unalterable right as he is that he designed Peace and Unity in the Church This certainty is built on no good grounds and therefore amounteth to no more but fancy I have shewed ground for a contrary perswasion and a way that Christ hath laid down for peace consistent with this right SECT VII Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church and First of the Liturgy THe Reverend Author is now at last Sect. 26. come to that which I reckon the main plea for our withdrawing from the Communion of the Church of England to wit the Terms of Communion that she imposeth on all that shall partake with her in the Ordinances of God which we count unlawful and therefore cannot submit to them the Church imposeth them so as none are permitted to joyn with her who forbear them and therâ—fore we cannot partake without them This putteth us on a necessity of forbearing Communion with her and the necessity of Worshipping God doth not suffer us to live without the Ordinances and thence resulteth a necessity of keeping sepâ—rate meetings which our Brethren blame us for and we blame them for forâ—ing us to it against our will. If these Terms of Communion upon due examination prove lawful we refuse not the blame of separation which we think as gâ—eat as they do but if they prove unlawful then doth the blame lie at their door who impose them Yea unbyassed men will say that if the things be but indifferent and of no necessity the Imposers cannot justifie the imposing of them when so sad inconvenience followeth upon them Sect. 2. These Terms of Communion in particular are the constant use of the Liturgy and the Ceremonies which are the Cross in Baptism Kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper and observing of Holy-days that God hath not appointed â—â—her Ceremonies they have which we also dislike but because they are not imposed as Terms of Communion we do not here mention them What is to be said of Godfathers and â—odmothers in Baptism we shall in its place examine The Doctor excuseth himself from saying any thing about the Lituâ—â—y because it hath laâ—ely been so very well defended by a Divine of this Church ciâ—eing on his Margin Dr. Falâ—oner's Vindication of Liturgies and I for the like cause forbear this debate or answering Dr. Falkoner that having been exceeding well done Anno 1681. by the Learned G. F. in his Questions between the Conformist and Nonconformist truly stated and briefly discussed which the Doctor if he had pleased to read the Writings on both sides the neglect of which he blameth us for might have taken notice of before his Third Edition came out 1682. But beside that neither Doctor Falkoner nor any other
hath answered what hath been said against the Liturgy and the use of it in the Anatomy of the Service-Book Interest of words in prayer Smectyminis Jerubbaal's necessity of Reformation and other pieces to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction in this point Although I have made some Collections on this subject yet so much being said by others and neither the Doctor nor any other being pleâ—sed to Answer it I also shall wave this Controversie Only hinting a few of the chief grounds of our Scruple in this matter because the Dr. p. 332 333. chargeth his Answerers with pretending to scruple without giving reason for their Scruples Sect. 3. We do not simply nor generally condemn Forms of Prayer they may be used when that work cannot be tollerably performed without them neither do we condemn joyning in such a way of praying even when the man that chuseth that way might and ought to do otherwise Neither do we scruple joyning in the use of the Liturgy meerly because it is imposed by Authority I know we are misrepresented in all these But 1. We condemn using of set Forms of Prayer either in private or publick without such necessity as that duty cannot be tollerably performed without that help 2. We think it unlawful for the Church or any other to impose on the Ministers of the Gospel the use of a set Form of Praying where there is not absolute necessity 3. We think in the present case of the Church there is no such absolute necessity of that imposition seeing Ministers may be had who are tollerably gifted for their Work And seeing it is Christ's Institution that none but such should be in the Ministery and seeing any Escapes or Indecencies that can be observed in a Ministers Administrations are to be Corrected by the Discipline of the Church which is Christ's way not by imposing a Liturgy which is Mans way 4. We think it unlawful for Ministers who are tollerably gifted for their Work and if they be not such in the judgment of the Church they should lay aside that Work and betake themselves to other Callings To submit to such Impositions or to use such Forms of Prayer 5. What is said of Forms of Prayers let it be also understood of Forms of Preaching Administration of Sacraments and Exhortations at them and of other parts of the Service of God Here we may rationally except Forms of singing praise unto God and that on two Grounds 1. The Scripture hath furnished the Church with such Forms for all cases of a Soul and of the Church in the Book of Psalms which is not done in Prayer and other Adminâ—strations So that these Forms are not humane as other Forms must beâ— 2. The Gift of composing Spiritual Songs fit to be sung in the Church is not to be expected that it should be Commonly given to the Pastors of the Church as the Gifts of Preaching and Praying are given 6. We think it unlawful for people to joyn in Worshipping God by a frame of Service not instituted nor warranted in the Word of God both as to the matter and as to the manner of it 7. The English Service Book is such a frame of Service as is not warranted nor instituted in the Word and so it is unlawful for us to joyn in Worshipping God by it Sect. 4. If we can give good reason for the 2d 4th 6th and 7th of these Assertions sufficient ground will appear for our scrupling the use of the Liturgy imposed as one of the Terms of our Communion with the Church of England For the First of these That Men may not impose set Forms on Gifted Ministers Arguments for this are 1. There is no warrant for such practice if there be it must be either Christ's Command or his Permission or the necessity of it The first nor second is not alledged because no such thing can be proved from the Word Nor the third for such a necessity is contrary to our supposition that the men so imposed on are gifted If it be said the best gifted may slip into unfit expressions Reply This unfitness is either tolerable and so no necessity can arise from that hazard or intoâ—erable and then it is to be cured by Christ's means Church Discipline not by the invention of man. 2. No such imposition nor usage was ever heard of in the Apostolick Church nor in the Primitive Church for 300 years and more and yet there were Ministers subject to Infirmities as Men now are and the Worship of God was by them fitly managed May not the means of securing Worship from abuse serve us that served them Or will we be wiser and mâ—re wary than they That there was any Forms used or imposed in the Apostles times we need not prove the Lord's Prayer is no Instance to the contrary it cannot be made appear that ever it was intended to be a form of words or used as such And for the Primitive times it is evident that when Constantine would help his Souldiers newly come out of Heathenism with a Form he behoved to get some composed which needed not had they then been in the Church Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 98. Edition Paris giving account of their publick Exercises on the Lord's day to wit reading Scripture Exhortation Prayer Singing Administration of the Lord's Supper he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Minister sendeth up Prayers and Thanksgivings as he is able then not by Book but his Ability as the Lord furnished him Tertullian Apol. c. 30. saith They prayed in their Assemblies sine monitore quum de pectore and in his Book de Oratiore he sheweth that there are many things to be asked according to every ones occasions the Lord's Prayer being laid as a Foundation where the true use of the Lord's prayer note that by the way is hinted to wit to be a Directory not a Form. Socrates Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 21. which is wholly spent in shewing what diversity of usages was in the Primitive times in divers places and how little weight was laid on uniformity the great Argument for the Common-prayer hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is generally and every where in all Religions in Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in one which surely must be meant of Agreement in the same words Sect. 5. A third Argument for this is such imposing doth thwart one great design of Prayer in publick which is to lay out before the Lord all the several cases of the people or the Church their sins and wants which do so vary that no Book can suit them all I am sure ours doth not If it be answerâ—d thâ—s design may be answered by leaving a liberty to Ministâ—rs sometimes as afâ—er Sermon 〈◊〉 use their gifts I reply that this Lâ—berty doth frustrate the design of set prayer which is to prevent venting of error and indecency is not that hazard in permitting prayer after Sermon as well
bring Papists to the Church tho' it proved after a while rather a mean of carrying Protestants to the Mass. And King Edward 6th with the Council did affirm as much in a Letter to the Rebels in the West who had risen in defence of Popery saying that the Service that now they had in English was almost the same that before they had in Latin. And any that readeth the Bible and the Mass and this Service may easily see that there is a far greater Simitude between it and the Mass than between it and all the Worship of God that the Scripture giveth account of to have been practiced in the Apostolick Church 2. This may appear if we consider the Original of this Service it was taken out of several Popish Books the Prayers out of the Breviary the Sacraments Burial Matrimony Visitation of the Sick out of the Ritual Adminstration of the Lords Supper out of the Mâ—ss-book and Consecration of Bishops out of the Pontifical as any may see who will be at the pains to compare the Books mentioned together Sect. 12. I know it will be said that they retain only those parts of those Books that were composed by the Orthodox Fathers of the Church and used in the primitive times But this is no sufficient defence for 1. Suppose that Frame of worship had so good an Original yet being now of late so grosly abused to Idolatry and being so like to the Idolatrous worship of the Papists rather than like Apostolick Worship and we having departed from that Church on good Grounds why should we chuse their way of worship and in so doing both differ from the primitive times especially the Apostles times and from all other Reformed Churches 2. It is false that this Frame of Service was composed by the Fathers it is indeed said by some that Jerom composed some Prayers for the use oâ— weak Christians but that he or any other such did compose this Frame or any thing like it is denyed and I have proved that there was no such thing in these Times The Prayers were made by Gregory the Great Anno 600. or thereabout other parts were added by other Popes the Responds came not in till many years after What is commonly talked of the Liturgies of the Apostles or Evangelists James Peter Matthew Mark is now so exploded as learned men among our Brethren do not plead for them This shall suffice concerning the Liturgy about which more might have been said but I have said more than at first I intended SECT VIII The other Terms of Communion that they impose considered I proceed now to attend the Learned Dr's Discourse about thesâ— other Terms of Communion that his Church imposeth and we scruple And first I take notice that he chargeth his Answerers with remaining in Generals and pretending that they judge they esteem the Terms of Communion unlawful but bring no particular Arguments to prove the unlawfulness of them He saith Protestants do not do so when they charge the Church of Rome with unlawful Terms of Communion The Answer to this is easie 1. They were charged with Separation and in answering the Dr's Sermon acted the part of Defendants it was enough for that deâ—ence to plead that they did not Separate without good Ground and to shew that they scrupled such and such Terms of Communion imposed on them by the Church It was not needful in this debate to resume all the Controversie about the Liturgy and Ceremonies 2. Our Party have given abundant proof of the reasonableness of their scrupling at these things the Books above mentioned against the Liturgy and against the Ceremonies Didoclavius the Author of the Book called the English Popish Ceremonies Mr. Jeans Treasuâ—e out of Rubish a Treatise of Divine Worship English Puritanism Twelve Arguments against Ceremonies Smectymn G. F. questions betwixt Conformists and Non-conformists and many other pieces There is so much said in these and yet unanswered that it was needless to repeat what is there said I must be guilty of the same fault if it be one having at length disputed against the Ceremonies and proved them to be unlawful to be used in a Piece entituled A Vindication of the Purity of Gospel Worship against Mr. Geoâ—ge Ritchel and others I may without blame referr the Reader thither and not repeat what is there written provided I leave nothing unanswered that the Dr. hath here said on that Subject 3. Our Party do not stand on equal Ground with the Dr. and his Party Neither have we the liberty of the Press as they have nor that immunity to speak out our Arguments but we are ready to be concluded by a Prison instead of Arguments but let not the Dr. think our Cause is laid low because our Persons and worldly Interests are so Sect. 2. He resumeth an Argument out of his Sermon against our Separating that there ought to be no Separation where there is agreement in Doctrine and Substantial parts of Worship and that this Agreement is acknowledged in our case He saith Mr. A. denyeth such Agreement both in Doctrine of this I have given my judgment above Part 2. S. 1. Section 2. also in Substantial parts of Worship and alledged the Cross in Baptism to be a Substantial part of Worship Hence the Dr. undertaketh p. 335. 1. To shew what he meaneth by Substantial parts of Worship 2. That the Cross is not made such The Dr. seemeth to lay some weight on this distinction of parts of Worship to wit Substantial and Circumstantial or Accidental and alledgeth that many of us are misled by not considering it I much desire the clearing of it and therefore resolve carefully to observe what he saith and shall be ready to receive Light. He saith that The Nonconformists great Principle is That what ever was any ways intended or designed for the Worship of God was a Real and Substantial part of his Worship and when their Adversaries told them that Divine Institution was needful to make a part of Worship they said that made True Worship but without it an Act might be Worship that is False Worship and yet they allow'd the Application of common Circumstances to Acts of Worship This Subject I have discoursed at large in the Book above cited cap. 3. sect 1 3 4. But shall now a little consider what representation the Dr. is pleased to make of our Principles 1. I know no Nonconformist that ever asserted that all that was intended or designed for Worship was Worship either Real or Substantial for they well know that the Meeting-place the Ministers Maintenance the Pulpit Communion-Table c. are designed for Worship and yet are no Worship Real nor Imaginary Substantial nor Accidental True nor False If he mean by being designed for Worship that the person doing such an Act intendeth to Worship God by so doing which I cannot take to be his meaning I hope himself will acknowledg that though such a design is needful to make an act
of Worship acceptable yet Worship may be without it else the three Children might have fallen down before the Image keeping their intention to themselves without the guilt of the external act of Idolatry Sect. 3. I observe here 2. That the Dr. confoundeth his own distinction by jumbling together the terms of Real and Substantial Worship To real Worship must be opposed that which is no Worship or but such in imagination To substantial Worship must be opposed that which is circumstantial or accidental Worship This is as if we should distinguish Eus in substantiam accidens and speaking of the first Member of the Division call it substantiam or eus reale which comprehendeth both substantia and accidens Let the Dr. then tell us plainly whether by substantial Worship he mean all that is really Worship or is truly Worship Veritate Metaphysica though it be not so Veritate Theologica And if this be his Meaning what needed such a distinction of Worship Had it not been as easie to deny the Ceremonies in debate to be Worship or any part of Worship as others of his Party do What needed he blame the Non-conformists for want of Clearness and Distinction in this matter when himself hath confounded it I see no use of this his clear Notion but to confound the debate and hide the nakedness of his Cause We say the Ceremonies are parts of Worship though false Worship others of his Party say they are no Worship but meer Circumstances of Worship The Dr. will clear the Matter by telling us That they are accidental Worship but not real nor substantial Worship Let any that hath a cleer sight judge whether this be a clearing or a confounding of this Matter Sect. 4. The Dr. will now p. 336. seriously consider this Matter because he designeth not to confute but to convince the Non-conformists and his work for this end is To find out a plain discernable Difference between substantial parts of Divine Worship and meer accidental Appendices and this he saith may more disintangle scrupulous Minds than the multiplying of Arguments to prove the Lawfulness of our Ceremonies I doubt not of the Doctor 's good design in this debate but he is not very like to attain it by such Methods as is this proposing a distinction to clear the Subject in dispute and then confound the Terms and then at last as he doth here to over-turn it wholly for here he calleth the Ceremonies meer accidental Appendices of Worship that is no Worship nor parts of Worship at all But let him call them what he will we strive not about Names we maintain that they are parts of Worship but parts of false Worship and in such a Religious State as nothing but the Institutions of Christ can lawfully have in that they are used in Religion appropriated to it designed for the Honouring of GOD by them for the bettering of Religious Actions and for the Religious end of edifying the Souls of them that use them These Qualities are in the Ceremonies and if these conjoined do not make an Action to be Religious and a part of Worship they belonging to no other part of Religion I know not what can make a thing to be an Act of Worship for to say that nothing can be a Religious Act but what hath Divine Institution is to deny that there can be such a thing as an external Act of Idolatry or Superstition Sect. 5. In pursuance of this Enquiry and to find out this plain and discernable difference between substantial parts of Worship and accidental Appendices of it The Dr. bringeth several things agreed on both sides they are five in number I shall not repeat them nor except against them save that I wish he had shewed in the Second of them how these things under the Law that by divine Institution became parts of Worship were of themselves Ritual and Ceremonial I rather think that without divine Appointment it was unlawful to use them as Rites or Ceremonies in Gods Worship He cometh now Sect. 27. To find out the Marks of Distinction to satisfie the Conscience of the Difference between Innocent Ceremonies and superstitious parts of Divine Worship Here is yet another Face of our Proteus-like distinction but I wave that finding that the Dr. cannot make it appear that there is any part of Worship that is not substantial and real Worship and that all that is a part of Worship is even by him looked on as superstitious if it be not appointed by divine Authority For his Notion of Innocent Ceremonies I apprehend not his Meaning by this Term Accidental Appendices of Worship he calleth them before which also needeth a Commentary If he mean natural Circumstances I know these may be very innocent and yet not instituted But a Ceremony as I have shewed in the before cited Vindic. of Purit C. 3. Sect. 3. is properly a thing in Statu Religioso or appropriate to Religion but no natural part of Worship and therefore I see not how it can be innocent unless instituted For accidental Appendices of Worship if they be any thing beyond natural and necessary Circumstances determined by natural or civil Custome I see not how these either can be innocent unless instituted I humbly conceive the Dr. hath hitherto brought little light into this Controversie but rather Darkness and Confusion Sect. 6. Seeing we cannot agree about these Notions let us labour if we can to concert the thing He telleth us of Two ways by which Ceremonies may become parts of Worship 1. By supposing them to be necessary and pleasing to GOD without a humane Law imposing them 2. By supposing them unalterable We need not debate with the Dr. whether things become parts of Worship and so superstitious when not instituted by these two ways or not But all this Discourse is wide from the purpose unless he make it appear that no uninstituted thing can be a part of Worship nor superstitious but by one of these Two Means Or if we can make it appear that without both these Opinions of men about the Things that they use in Worship without Institution they may be guilty of false Worship or Superstition which I here do briefly because I have done it sufficiently in the place cited against Mr. Ritshell who objected the same thing in defence of the Ceremonies that the Dr. now doth 1. If this were true there could be no external Act of false Worship without an Erroneous Opinion of the Mind but that is absurd for then a man who to shun Persecution should fall down before an Idol and in Words and Gestures do all that Idolaters do should not be guilty of the outward Act of Idâ—latry yea it would follow that is the Church should erect a Statue and impose it as a necessary Term of Communion with her that her Members should once a week kneel before that Statue and pray to GOD and then kiss that Statue with a reverend Bow when mean while the
The Dr. is pleased Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus and counts opposing it a blow at the Church If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony he should have answered what is of purpose learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken and twelve arguments against it by another hand and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A. But this Ceremony being imposed by the Church as one of the terms of her Communion which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it I shall a little consider it by proposing our scruples against the use of it and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it But we must first consider the true state of the controversy which is not whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name whereby that Blessed Person or either of the other Persons of the God-head are designed to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty whom Saints and Angels Worship Yea nor thirdly whether it be in it self and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling as bowing or lifting up the eyes when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names All these we readily yield And our Brethren on the other hand grant that no Worship direct or indirect mediate nor immediate such as Papists give to their Images is due to the Name i. e. the Word 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service it is not there restricted to the Lessons and the Creed as the Dr. alledgeth page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeths Sermons are also taken in a general clause when otherwise in the Church mentioned carrieth it to all acts of Worship which the Dr. without ground would limit to wit when they are not imployed in any other act of Devotion 3. They make it no natural but instituted piece of Worship the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful never pleadeth for the necessity of it and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church It is true some of them plead Scripture for it to wit Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty as naturally necessary as praying and believing But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this The question then is 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence by bowing the head or knee or otherwise when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands To both our Brethren answer affirmatively and we answer negatively Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship Ergo it is unlawful The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of Mens Traditions in his Worship as vain on this account that they are the Commands of Men Math. 15. 9. Mark 7. 7. of which before And I think the Doctor will not deny it who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant page 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts to wit that this Act is uncommanded and that it an Act of Worship For the First Few of our Brethren alledge a Command for it for then it should not be indifferent as they make it and they that plead a Command found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way injoin any such Rite For first the Greek Text is plain not at but in the Name of JESUS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words For the plain sense is that subjection to his Dignity and Power shall be yielded by all Creatures 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service but must either prove this a duty at all times when this Name is uttered or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling and I know not that it is in the Churches Power where the Lord commandeth kneeling to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be injoined so is confessing with the Tongue ver 11. What power hath the Church to pick and chuse Scripture-Commandments to injoin one and neglect another of equal Authority But why do I stay on this many Episcopal men and even some Papists look on this Text as nothing to the purpose in hand for the Second Part of the Antecedent that this Bowing is an Act of Worship I hope that will not be denyed it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ and the stating of it in Divine Service and appropriating it to that doth constrain men to look so upon it Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service Ergo It is not acceptable Service The Consequence I hope will not be denyed The Antecedent I prove because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word rather than at the mention of these other Names by which God Father Son and Holy Ghost or our Blessed Redeemer are called It is not enough that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST and therefore must either prove the Church faulty in not instituting Worship to all these names or they prove nothing at all 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony between this name and others that are equally holy therefore they must either give a reason why adoration is fit in this case rather than in the other cases or they do not reach the Question The Reasons given by the learned Hooker Eccles. polic lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent to wit 1. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him is not warrantable He hath appointed ways for it and not left them to our devising 2. He saith It maketh much against the Arians who deny his God head Answer 1. His way of convincing gain-sayers is by the Word we must not devise ways of our own to convince Hereticks Moses and the Prophets being God's way are more powerful to convince than if one were sent from the dead
clear from what hath been said I have also shewed how irrational it is to parallel the Bell to call People together with a sign stated in Worship to stirr up or put in mind of it what Mr. A. objecteth that there is more need of this reverence in our ordinary converse I have touched before The Dr. maketh it a strange crossness to deny it in Worship and then plead for it in other cases But Mr. A. doth not plead for it in any case but useth this as a good reason to shew the folly of their imposition But enough of this Sect. 35. The rest of his debate with Mr. A. may soon be dispatched Mr. A. commendeth the moderation of the Canon 640. not imposing Worship toward the East or Altar but leaving it indifferent and pleadeth for the same Indulgence in other rites as little necessary in themselves as Crossing Kneeling c. according to the Apostles rule that differing parties should not judge nor censure one another Rom. 14. 3. The Dr. in his answer bringeth two reasons of this different practice one is the one sort of things were settled at the Reformation not so the other another is the one is settled by Law the other not It is strange the Dr. should lay weight on either or both of these reasons in opposition to the Apostles command of forbearance for the question still recurreth on the first setler of these either by Law or otherwise Why did they impose things so severely that the Apostle would have us bear with one another in And then it recoileth on the upholders of this unwarantable settlement Why do they continue such impositions as may be for-born and divide the Church by so doing We do prove these things unlawful as the Dr. requireth but tho' we should fail in that proof their counting them indifferent is enough to condemn such severe imposing of them He saith page 364. that Mr. A. thinketh the rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then Papists may come in for a share as to worshipping the Host Images c. Had Mr. A. talked at this rate the Dr. would as he doth on less ground have said his fancy had been disordered and all things were not right somewhere Did ever Mr. A. or any of us say this or words to that effect We say this of things indifferent not of things about which Christians differ and so I hope the Papists are sufficiently shut out Sect. 36. VVhen Mr. A. or any of us blame the leading Church-men for using these things that are not imposed we make this no grounds of Separation as the Dr. would insinuate VVhat Mr. A. saith of disagreeing in a circustantial part of VVorship is not the conclusion of his discourse to prove a disagreement in substantial parts of Worship but an Antithesis sufficiently proved to the Dr's assertion that all our difference was about circumstances of VVorship and he makes it appear that not only they with the Dissenters but they among themselves did so disagree while some of them Bow to the Altar others not If this be not a part of VVorship I see not how Bowing to an Image can be called such He further blameth Mr. A. page 365. at the end for making a sort of middle things able to justify Separation between Substantial parts of VVorship and meer Circumstantials And the Dr. doth most unjustly inferr from thence that Separation is justified by things that are neither Substantial nor Circumstantial parts of VVorship and no part of it at all For he will not consider that tho' Mr. A. doth not make the Ceremonies meer Circumstantials yet he maketh them Circumstantial parts of VVorship that is parts of VVorship without which all that VVorship that Christ hath instituted is confessed to be intire And if Mr. A. do also go about to prove that the Ceremonies are made by the Church-men Substantial parts of VVorship it is no incoherency in him but in them who talk so variously of these rites sometimes as the veriest trifles that can be sometimes as so much conducing to the Glory and Decency of Gospel-VVorship The truth is Substantial parts of VVorship is a term of the Drs. as Mr. A. telleth him none of ours and therefore if we do not apply it sometimes to his mind let him blame himself for not making it more intelligible to us by his explication of it SECT IX The other Pleas pretended for Separation VVE come now with the Dr. to the next Plea used for Separation to wit that the Dissenters are still unsatisfied in their Consciences about the Churches terms of Communion and the Church excommunicateth them and therefore they cannot join He is pleased to join these two tho' very distinct yet he prosecuteth them severally For the latter which he speaketh first of the Dissenters Plea that he is pleased to take off is the Excommunication ipso facto by the Canon 6. that we all lye under Before I consider his answer to this I must tell him of two things that have more weight to justify our Separation than that Canonical Excommunication 1. That many thousands of us are otherwise Excommunicated for our non-compliance with the Ceremonies even by the personal application and publishing of the sentence against us yea multitudes may not go to Church if they would being under the Writ de capiendo Excommunicato and daily watched for to be apprehended this putteth on us a forcible necessity of non-Non-communion and conscience of Worshipping God and waiting on the means of Grace engageth us to meet privately to enjoy these ordinances that we cannot have publickly The second thing is even they who are not under the sentence of Excommunication yet are materially Excommunicated by your Church if they will not comply with your Ceremonies for we can have none of the Sacraments without them and your Canon excludeth us out of the Church unless we Bow at the Name of Jesus So that we cannot if we never so fain would enjoy God's Ordinances among you without partaking your Ceremonies Wherefore all the blame that can be cast on us is not using the Ceremonies From which we have sufficiently cleared our selves in the eyes of unby-assed Men all that followeth on this is not to be charged on us but on the rigour of your Church which forceth us from among them Sect. 2. The Dr. answereth to the Plea from the Canonical Excommunion Sect. 33. page 367. that that Excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of the things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it and he blameth Mr. B. as misciting the words of the Canon Wherefore I shall set down the whole Canon it is the Can. 6. of the Convocation 1603. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law Established are wicked anti-christian or superstitious or such as being commanded
by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto and not restored untill he repent and publickly revoke these his wicked Errours The Dr. hath a subtile distinction here between but affirm which term Mr. B. had used and affirm One would think that affirm and no more added to it signifieth no more than but affirm But the Dr. saith that affirm signifieth these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve Excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism I know not I am sure his citation out of Augustine that a man is born with till he find an accuser or obstinately defend his opinion saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable being asked why he doth not Conform shall say he cannot do it with a good conscience he falleth under the plain letter of this Law and goeth against the express words of it and this is the least that a modest man can say unless he will say I will not do it and that will be called obstinacy and so bring him under the Law in the Dr's own sense But if the man as a modest man may give reasons for his Non-conformity when men require him to Conform every word he saith will bring him under this Excommunication Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea is pag. 368 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists that such an excommunication is but a commination and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past applying it to him and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves by withdrawing from the Church I shall not contend about this though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth were rather ipso Jure than ipso Facto and that excommunication ipso Facto bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed But to let that pass this excommunication declareth what we are to expect and the frequent yea general execution of it putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported sure such excommunication and the fact which we neither deny nor are ashamed of are enough to loose our tie that we had to the Church Sect. 4. He answereth a question Can these be called Schismaticks who are first excommunicated by the Church He saith they may in two cases 1. When there is just cause for the sentence Reply I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismaticks but to call men Schismaticks for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out seemeth to be such a figure as when men are called Fugitives who are justly banished but I will not contend about words If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth make nothing for that none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion imposing mens devises in the Worship of God and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them His second case in which excommunicates are Schismaticks is if they set up New Churches which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned Reply He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust else this case were coincident with the former And in that case I distinguish his assertion The unjust excommunication is either for an alledged personal fault or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false Again it is either past against one or few or it is against a great multitude a considerable part of a Church or Nation If it be for an alledged personal fault where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned I do not say that such may set up new Churches It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine Worship or Discipline but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle falsly called errour and it also reacheth a great part of the Church Ministers and People I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves let men call it setting up of new Churches or what they will. For 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation or near so many should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God for the Caprice of some ambitious Church-men who excommunicate them because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case the Orthodox had been Schismaticks when they were excommunicated by the Arians and set up New Churches 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances because of their love to the purity of them What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes not for any thing of their Faith for he bids them keep the true Faith without Separate meetings Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth in the end of page 371. and forward to consider another Plea made for separation to wit scruple of Conscience which I think none do make the sole ground of separation but they have a ground for their scruple If that ground be good it will warrant the scruple and the separation too if not it can do neither And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea distinct from what I have already defended I suppose the Author that mention it intend no more than I say only they may rationally maintain that a scruple not sufficiently warranted in a person otherwise sober and sound about a matter indifferent or not intollerably evil tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant nor a Casuist but of somewhat else that I shall not name For when it had been pleaded that these scruples are great of long standing not to be removed without very over-powering impressions on mens minds He answereth by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries that a little impartiality and consideration would do it but that
we read judge and hear only on one side think it a temptation to examin cry out we are satisfied already are not willing to be informed nor glad of light fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples c. If we be such men why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such and the People too to cry out away with such fellows from the Earth it is not fit they should live He asketh where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples If I should speak in his dialect I should answer in the arguments by us produced which he and all his party are not able to answer nor have ever answered but I had rather-dispute than scold He saith we may see light if we will We say we would see it if we could and think we could see it if it were to be seen He telleth us how easy this dispute is We assent and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth He chargeth us with willful mistake a mistake we deny and make the contrary of it appear but if it be a mistake that it is willful we also deny and though we cannot in this satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts who will one day judge us and our rash judgers Sect. 6. He contesteth page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook there is no need of insisting on such debates Brethren should study to understand one another and construe every thing to the best But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse pag. 72 73 74. which he hath but lightly or hardly at all touched He proceedeth pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists who objecteth that these who cannot conquer their scruples as to Communion with our Church must either return to the state of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers The Dr's Answer is that this is new Doctrine the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at Reply I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans that did both scruple and act as we do but I deny not that some did join with the Church but then their scruples and ours do differ They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient yet might be used we think them unlawful and not to be used There was also another difference they met with some indulgence and were suffered to Worship God with the Church and forbear the things that they scrupled We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these and therefore whatever they did we are under this unpleasing choice either to sin against God and our Consciences or to set up Separate Meetings or to return to the state of Paganism i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God. Sect. 7. It is objected that we scruple joining in the Sacraments and living under some of the Ministers He answereth that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation neither do I insist on it as I have before declared save where they Preach false Doctrine or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin And this scruple hath been often heard of It is too vulgar a way of reasoning it is a hard case if People must fly into separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be Pray who ever said so But the Dr. would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joining with others their separation be lawful This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge that scrupling can never make Separation lawful it is good ground for these scruples that must do that Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations might have been spared as wholly impertinent O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of New-England he asketh what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present Separation Ans. There is in it that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising or other unlawful terms of Communion and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these He telleth us page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their scruples It is true neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account but withal he might have added that few setled Churches except that of Rome and that of England do tempt or rather force men to scruple and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion which they know many count unlawful What he saith ibid. for Papists Anabaptists and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating doth no way come up to our case Neither are their scruples built on good grounds nor are the things that they scruple known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation by shewing what scruples are to be allowed and what not Hath this never been done by Non-conformists Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences If these were attended to a stop might soon be put to Separation but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand and the Church will impose without cause on the other there is no putting a stop to Separations till the Lord cure our Distempers Rigour and Persecution if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party is one way to put a stop to Separation but it is none of Gods way and as it never had his approbation so it seldom hath had success Sect. 8. The Learned Author Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject to wit the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation and therefore might wave this whole debate But I think it is an abuse and therefore shall say a little on this Subject Here we have not any institution to guide us there being nothing in Scripture that I know of about Spoâ—sion for the party Baptized And therefore as on the one hand what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary should not be withstood so on the other what is beyond that should not be practised and far
Commanded by God nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature and dictated by it nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship but is only imposed by the Will of man is unlawful to be used in that Worship but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such Ergo c. The major is clear for that must in that case be Will-worship the minor is proved by what is said and the conclusion followeth â—iâ—syllogistica Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolick and purest Primitive Church Christ with his Disciples Sate or leaned they used the table gesture then made decent by civil custom and yet they used as much humility in receiving and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do or can In after Ages this Practice was not used it is well known that in Tertullians time and till the beginning of the Fifth Century they did not use to Kneel on any Lords Day between Easter and Pentecost so much as at Prayer and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it how then did they make the Communion Kneeling A third ground is this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature with a Religious respect to the Creature but this is unlawful c. The first proposition is clear for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them that we Kneel and it will not be denyed that we there adore God Religiously The second proposition I prove because Protestants do generaly condemn Praying before an Image as on other accounts so on this because it is an adoring of God before a Creature with a Religious respect to it let our Brethren shew us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship as they do the other they deny that they give any Worship to the Image as we do with reference to the Elements A fourth Ground is this Practice as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent hath been grosly abused to Idolatry the Papists in the same external way worshiping the Hoste And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christs Bodily presence in the Sacrament and the Papists profess that if they did not believe that they would not so Kneel and is it fit that we should so symbolize with them which by this Practice we do to that degree that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs by the spectators of both These grounds I have but hinted being spoken to more largely by others Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies she may impose some use of Images c. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages All this discourse might have been waved for neither Mr. A. nor any of us did ever make that a ground of Separation tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground If they will remove the present Ceremonies we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them nor out of fear of what may come Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth and then refuteth is Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface he should have said Epistle Dedicatory to Mischief of Impositions but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is ad hominem against the Dr's ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church Ration account p. 293. And def against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth Separation from that Church Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joyning with the Church of England but Worshiping God in Meeting apart from it Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book to set it off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Letters of three French Divines Printed first in French and then in English ad pompam for it is little ad pugnam But he might know what ever difference we give to learned and good men their authority without Scripture proof which we yet desiderate will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice let the Dr. call it obstinacy or by what name he pleaseth The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden to the Bp. of London the authority of which Letter not of the learned Author of it we have good cause to neglect because it is apparent to any that read it that it is written by a stranger to us upon gross mis-information of our principles For he saith page 404. that he could not have perswaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England And I join with him so far that I know not nor hear of one Non-conformist of that opinion but thus it seems we are by our Brethren represented abroad and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England yea in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and that hold truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held so he page 408. he also page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher as very ridiculous and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists sheweth him to be either a very great stranger to them or somewhat that is worse Let any now judge whether such a Testimony be to be received against us Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it to be an ingenious and sober Person but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party He lamenteth our Divisions so do we he is for complyance with the Ceremonies being setled but is far enough from approving of them The former part of this I impute to his being less concern'd to consider these things than we are He stateth our Separation mainly
apprehension can warrant us to break the Church in pieces The best grounded Scruples can only warrant our peaceable withdrawing and worshipping God apart which may consist with the Church's being whole and sound He doth exceedingly wrong Mr. B. and others in that he imputeth to them an opinion That better means of Edification is by it self a sufficient ground of separating from a Church If any have ever asserted that let them bear their blame It may be some might mention this as a cumulative inducement to join with other Societies but none of us ever held that this alone could warrant a Separation And yet the Dr. is at a great deal of pains to prove that neither the old Separatists nor the New-England-men ever held such an Opinion which he might have got us to yield to him without his spending five Pages in the proof of it but some men labour most in that which is least necessary I know not what name to give to the Dr's Assertion p. 117. That this greater means of Edification is now the main support of the present Separation Nothing can be spoken with less semblance of Truth SECT II. Of the Ministry of the Church of England FRom Sect. 7. and forward the Dr. debateth against Separation that is grounded on the Church's want of true or rightly qualified Ministers Here I shall have but little Debate with him I shall to cut off Debates as much as may be lay down mine own thoughts which I think are not different from those of most sober Non-conformists especially Presbyterians in a few particulars 1. We look on some of the Conforming Ministers as Persons of great worth and excellent Ministerial Qualifications and could live with great satisfaction under their Ministry if it were permitted to us without our Sin. 2. Others of them we know to be very bad men and ill qualified for the Work that they undertake they are Strangers in England who have not seen this 3. We are dissatisfied with some things in the Calling and Practice of all the present Clergy we think the very Office of some of them unlawful as Bishops Deans Aâ—ch-Deacons c. and their Ordination by a Bishop alone not warrantable their Call by Patrons we judge such also and their using the Liturgy and Ceremonies we look on as sinful These things I now only assert and shall debate them with the Dr. as they fall in 4. Yet we deny not any of them on any or all of these accounts to be true Ministers nor to have the substance of a lawful Calling Let this be understood of Bishops and Deâ—ns c. as Ministers not as in these superiour offices 5. Tho' we think a better and more edifying Ministry than that which most of the People of Eâ—gland live under very desirable yet we do not think that any defect that is in their Ministerial Call or in the Truth of their Ministry is a sufficient ground for separating from the Church Sect. 2. These things being premised I am resolved not to take the defence of all that some have written of the defects of the Ministry as a ground of Separation tho' I find many things cited by the Dr. that at first view may seem to have that tendency aâ—d he improveth them with all the advantage that he can and yet were not so meant In the very entrance of this discourse I meet with a most unjust Imputation laid on us by the Dr. In general saith he they declare that they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors as they approve and for this citeth not oâ—e Author but Mr. Baxter Is this fair dealing Did ever the Non-conformists make Mr. Baxter their general Representative or Hath he so much as pretended to write in the Name of them all Were it candid in us if we should pick out some passages out of Dr. Sherlock's Book of The Knowledge of Christ and impute those opinions to the Conformists as their Doctrine in general Beside Mr. Baxter nor no Non-conformist never made their Approbation the Rule by which Ministers are to be judged the having of whom maketh a true Church But the Dr. looketh on us as a Company of silly Rediculous Men and is pleased often so to expose us Mr. Baxter's Notion about true Pastors and true Churches I know he himself can best defend And therefore I leave him and the Dr. to debate that Case Sect. 3. He saith Sect. 8. If the People judge their Ministers to be unworthy or incompetent they allow thâ—m Liberty to withdraw and to separate from them and promiseth to prove it from many passages in several Books of Mr. Baxter's and others Still he representeth us as making the Peoples Judgment the Rule and that this Judgment is sufficient ground of Separation not considering whether their Judgment be right or wrong or that there is a Superior Rule by which all Judgment whether of people or others is to be governed All this we disown neither can the Dr. prove that any of us ever owned it Yea we further deny that we own a Power in the People to withdraw and separate from every Pastor who is really unworthy and incompetent But what he asserteth he endeavoureth to prove by three Arguments 1. Saith he p. 122. They leave it to the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit This we deny And the Proof he bringeth of it is Mr. B. speaketh against the right of Patronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases for the unalterable right of the People Mr. A. saith every particular Church hath power to chuse its own Pastors Dr. Owen maketh the depriving the people of this Right a Ground of Separation If Dr. Owen hath done so let it pass for a part of the Independent Judgment which was the mistake of that Eminent Servant of God others are not of that mind For Mr. B. and Mr. A's words no such consequence can be drawn from them The People and neither Patron nor any other by the Laws of the Gospel have the right of Election of their Pastors but it doth not follow that they ought not to bear with being hindred the Exercise of this right for the sake of Peace and Unity Sect. 4. The 2d Argument is The People are made Judges of the Worthyness and Competency of their Ministers This saith he followeth from the former Ans. I have disowned the former and therefore this falleth with it Yet I here distinguish The the people have a discretive power of judging the fitness of the Man that is to be set over them with respect to their Souls so as he ought not to be obtruded on them without their being satisfied with him But the Peoples power of judging is not Authoritative nor Supreme much less absolute in this matter but Subordinate to the Pastors of the Church who have power of trying the Person Elected by the People and rejecting him if unqualified For the Spirit
Church declareth that this is not commanded out of an Opinion that such kneeling c. is antecedently pleasing to GOD nor that this their Command is unalterable nor binding to all nor that the things commanded are unalterable and so binding but only the Church judgeth this decent and fit to adorn the other parts of Worship I say in this case this bowing should be innocent Ceremony and no Act of false Worship which I think will hardly go down with the greatest Ceremony-Mongers And in a word let us but receive this one Principle that there is no false Worship without such Opinion as he mentioneth and men may do what they will and the Church impose what she will in the Worship of GOD provided they keep a right Opinion about the nature of these things so that it is no more our concern to look to Scripture that we may learn how to order the external Worship of GOD but to look to our Opinion that it be not faulty And by this means there are few of the Ceremonies that ever Papists or Heathens used but a Church sound in the Faith and in opinion about Superstition might bring them into the Worship of GOD which is to open the door for Ceremonial Worship a little too wide in the opinion of most sound Divines Sect. 7. Another Exception I make against the Dr. Two ways how an Act becometh superstitious is let them especially the first of them be applyed to our Ceremonies and I doubt not but even what himself hath said might condemn them for however the pliable People that use the Ceremonies because commanded by the Church and see no antecedent necessity or goodness in them may by this means be acquitted from Superstition the Church that imposeth them cannot be so innocent for either the Church must have reason for this Imposition or none but sic volo sic jubeo sit pro ratione Voluntas The Latter I hope the Dr. will not say lest by purging his Church of Superstition he make her guilty of as great a Crime to wit being Lords over GOD's Heritage and Church-Tyrants If he say the Former this Reason must be that these things are needful that they please GOD No say our Adversaries the Churches Reason for imposing them is She thinketh them decent and edifying But doth she not think this Decency and that Edification that is by them to be antecedently pleasing to GOD and needful for the Church If she do not she acteth by meer will if she do she is guilty of a superstitious opinion in supposing uninstituted things in VVorship to be pleasing to GOD antecedentally to a humane Law for if the use of them be pleasing to God so must the things out of which that usefulness doth result And indeed it may abundantly appear to the Conviction of all unbyassed Men what opinion of the necessity of these Ceremonies our Bishops have when they appoint them by their Canons impose them with Rigour and Severity punish the Neglect of them with such Violence and when they force them upon the Consciences of them who agree with themselves in all things else and when they make such distractions and divisions in the Church rather than lay aside these things Can any man of common sense whose reason is not fetter'd by Prejudice and Interest judge that men who act so have no opinion of the antecedent Goodness of the Ceremonies or that they do not think them pleasing to God He that thinketh otherwise can think what he will. Sect. 8. I come now to examine what the Dâ— saith in defence of these Two things which he requireth to make an uncommanded Act in Worship to be superstitious The 1st is That it be supposed to be necessary and pleasing to God and the omission of it unpleasing to God antecedently to a humane Law. All the proof that he bringeth of what he saith is that the Observations that Christ condemned in the Pharisees had no other evil in them nor were condemned on any other account but because of this Opinion that they had about them as Grocius observeth that Touching any thing unclean by Law did communicate uncleanness to Soul and Body and that Washing did cleanse both on which supposition they thought this Washing pleasing to God. Three things I here reply before I come to answer the Drs. Proofs of this his Allegation 1. All this is nothing to our purpose unless it can be made appear that Christ condemneth only their erroneous Opinion and not theâ—â— Practise or that they might Lawfully have added these Religious observations to these that the Lord had appointed in his Law provided they had no opinon of the antecedent necessity of the things which is so far from being proved that the Contrary is evident for our Lord doth expresly Condemn the observing of these things Mark 7. 8. Ye hold the Tradition of men as the Washing of Pots and Cups and many other such things do ye Their Doing not their Thinking only is condemned Will any man say that if any of the Pharisees should have laid aside that Opinion that the Dr. imputeth to them and look'd on these observations as of no necessity antecedent to the Tradition of the Elders and yet observed them Carefully and Religiously that such a one had sufficiently complyed with Christ's Doctrine no surely for the Controversy between the Disciples and Pharisees was not about Thinking but about Doing the Disciples not only were not of their Opinion but abstained from their Practice Sect. 9. It is evident from Galat. 4. 9 10. that the Apostle condemneth the observation of the old Jewish Ceremonies though it is clear that he is mainly disputeing against their opinion of Justification by works and these among other works yet this doth not hinder the practice of these abstracted from that opinion to be evil it being expresly condemned wherefore it is not enough that our practice in Gods Worship be not built on a bad opinion but it self must have warrant from God. 2. Christ in that debate is mainly dealing with the Imposers of these Ceremonies the Pharisees who continued that Yoak on the People that their Ancestors had laid on them and therefore it is no wonder that he took notice of a perverse opinion in them which moved them so to impose on the People whereas the people that obeyed might be moved only by the authority of their Guides hence he calleth them their Traditions because they continued them and put new life in them by their Authority The parallel then still holdeth between our Case and theirs as they behoved to have some undue esteem of these washings that made them Impose them with the same yea more Zeal than that with which they enjoyned the Ordinances of God so there must be in our Church-Guides some apprehension of Good in the Ceremonies more than is meet that maketh them not only intermix them with Divine Worship but impose them with equal if not superiour Zeal with the