the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they
Harrison His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown and the Defence of that Admonition When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament viz. Vnlawful Ministry Antichristian Government and False Worship Gifford a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex undertook to Answer them in several Treatises And it is observable that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile Notorious and Damnable Schism because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches and set up New Ones of their own Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks but saith They make a Vile Schism Rending themselves from the Church of England and condemning by their Assertions the Whole Visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time and he adds That the end of Brownism as it was then called is Infinite Schismes Heresies Atheism and Barbarism And the same Author in his Second Book reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People hath these remarkable words Now look also on the People where we may see very many who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues and Godly Duties as namely to be Meek to be Patient to be Lowlie to be full of Love and Mercy to deal Vprightly and Iustly to Guide their Families in the Fear of God with Wholsome Instructions and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them give themselves wholly to this even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion namely to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church against Bishops and Ministers and one against another on both sides Some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher but not to the Prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gone further and fallen into a Damnable Schism and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in these matters But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists appears by his Stating the Question in the same Preface For I shewed saith he in express words that I do not meddle at all in these Questions whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods Word whether they be many or few whether they be small or great but only thus far whether they be such or so great as make our Churches Antichristian Barrow saith That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist and he is joyned with Cartwright Hildersham Brightman and other Non-conformists by the Prefacer to the Desence of Bradshaw against Iohnson and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison Browns Colleague against Separation proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence through his being and placing in a particular Church and justly required of him by the Church or Spiritual Body through that same inforcing Law of the coherence and being together of the parts and members which is the express Ordinance of God So that saith he unless I hold the Congregation whereof I am now disanulled and become no Church of Christ for the not separating an unworthy Member I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises or yet depart away being come together without Breach of the Bond of Peace Sundring the Cement of Love empairing the growth of the Body of Christ and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere Richard Bernard calls it An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of But I need not mention more particular Aâ—thors since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists in the Name of the Non-conformists it is said That because we have a True Church conâ—â—ting of a Lawful Ministery and a Faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation they say We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate as long as they continue in this Schism Sect. 9. But for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie we must consider What things were agreed on both sides and where the Main Points of Difference lay 1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it In their Apology presented to King Iames thus they speak We testifie by these presents unto all Men and desire them to take knowledge hereof that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation between Iohnson and Iacob saith That the first Separatists never denied that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them to be true Christians and in the state of Salvation but always held professed and acknowledged the contrary Barrow saith That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs and deemed them saved notwithstanding the false Offices and great corruptions in the Worship exercised And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death he saith He had Reverend estimation of sundry and good hope of many hundred thousands in England though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church in the present Communion Ministry Worship Government and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies 2. The Separatists granted That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it Thus they express themselves in their Apology Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for blemishes and imperfections which every one according to his Calling should studiously seek to cure and to expect and further it until either there follow redress or the Disease be grown incurable And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith written by Iohnson and Ainsworth they have these words None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and Corruptions which may and so
long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men will fall out and arise among them even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof But in the case of our Church they pleaded that the Corruptions were so many and great as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church So Barrow saith They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election or from Christ but from being Members of a True Constituted Church On the other side the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary or lawful So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions 1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrew the being or constitution of it 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversie 1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it Barrow and his Brethren did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separation unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches For here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be Want of a right gathering our Churches at first False Worship Antichristian Ministery and Government These Reasons say they all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate especially when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied but resisted blasphemed persecuted These are the words of the First and Chiefest Separatists who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles We condemn not say they their Assemblies barely for a mixture of good and bad which will alwayes be but for want of an orderly gathering or constitution at first we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry but for having and reteining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government or Discipline but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections but because their Worship is Superstitious devised by Men Idolatrous according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book according unto which their Sacraments and whole Administration is performed and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well that nothing but such a Charge which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound could justifie their Separation not meer promiscuous Congregations nor mixt Communions not defect in the Exercise of Discipline not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church as they supposed Idolatrous Worship and an Antichristian Ministry to do If Mr. Giffard saith Barrow can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches then we would shew him how free we are from Schism The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames by Ainsworth Iohnson and the rest of them Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God ought not by any true Christian to be continued or Communicated with but must be forsaken and separated from and a true Church sought and ioyned unto c. But the Church of England is before proved not to be the true Church of Christ and of God therefore it ought to be separated from c. By which we see the Greatest Separatists that were then never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches if they were true On the other side those who opposed the Separation with greatest zeal thought nothing more was necessary for them to disprove the Separation then to prove our Churches to be true Churches R. Brown from whom the Party received their denomination thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright the Ringleader of the Non-conformists to prove the Necessity of Separation because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here he made our Church not to be a true Church and consequently that Separation was necessary T. C. Answers That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing as giveth an utter overthrow and turning upside down of the truth His meaning is wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church or Iustifie Separation from it For he addeth although besides Faith in the Son of God there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being and not simply to the being of the Church And in this respect saith he the Lutheran Churches which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies which beside the maym of Discipline which is common to our Churches are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God Was not Jerusalem saith he after the Return from Babylon the City of the Great King until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City To say therefore it is none of the Church because it hath not received this Discipline methinks is all one with this as if a Man would say It is no City because it hath no Wall or that it is no Vineyard because it hath neither Hedge nor Ditch It is not I grant so sightly a City or Vineyard nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church his Defender saith He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church with respect to Censures but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People Afterwards as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation their main Business was To Prove our Churches to be True Churches As in a Book Entituled Certain Positions hâ—ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of
between what falls out through the passions of Men and what follows from the nature of the thing But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes notice of a Third Cause of these Dissentions viz. The Iudgment of God upon them I do see saith he the hand of God is heavy upon them blinding their Minds and hardening their Hearts that they do not see his Truth so that they are at Wars among themselves and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them First Their Invincible Obstinacy Secondly The Scandalous Breaches which followed still one upon the other as long as the course of Separation continued and were only sometimes hindred from shewing themselves by their not being let loose upon each other For then the Firebrands soon appear which at other times they endeavour to cover Their great Obstinacy appears by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood who being Condemned for Seditious Books could no ways be reclaimed rather choosing to Dye than to Renounce the Principles of Separation But Penry who suffered on the same account about that time had more Relenting in him as to the business of Separation For Mr. I. Cotton of New-England relates this Story of him from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham an eminent Non-conformist That he confessed He deserved Death at the Queens hand for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Subjects whom he had Seduced and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands These are Mr. Cotton's own words Concerning Barrow he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth that when he stood under the Gibbet he lift up his eyes and said Lord if I be deceived thou hast deceived me And so being stopt by the hand of God he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more either to the Glory of God or Edification of the People These Executions extremely startled the Party and away goes Francis Iohnson with his Company to Amsterdam Iohnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Anabaptism and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government In short they fell to pieces separating from each others Communion some say They formally Excommunicated each other but Mr. Cotton will not allow that but he saith They only withdrew yet those who were Members of the Church do say That Mr. Johnson and his Company were Accursed and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoided by Mr. Johnson and his And one Church received the Persons Excommunicated by the other and so became ridiculous to Spectators as some of themselves confessed Iohnson and his Party charged the other with Schism in Separating from them But as others said who returned to our Church Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson than for him to refuse and avoid the Communion of all True Churches beside But the Difference went so high that Iohnson would admit none of Ainsworth's Company without Re-baptizing them Ainsworth on the other side charged them with woful Apostasy And one of his own Company said That he lived and died in Contentions When Robinson went from Leyden on purpose to end these Differences he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People Which with Mr. Ainsworths Maintenance was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-Governmâ—nt Smith who set up another Separate congregation was Iohnson's Pupil and went over In hopes saith Mr. Cotton to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation but he was so far from that that he soon outwent him and he charges the other Separate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England viz. 1. Idolatrous Worship for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry in Reading of Prayers he thought them equâ—lly guilty in looking on their Bibles in Preaching and Singing 2. Antichristian Government in adding the Human Inventions of Doctors and Ruling Elders which was pulling down one Antichrist to set up another and if one was the Beast the other was the Image of the Beast Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches he began one wholly new and therefore Baptized himself For he declared There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists But this New Church was of short continuance for upon his Death it dwindled away or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation and so in all probability there had had not Mr. Robinson of Leyden abated much of the Rigor of it for he asserted The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer but not in Sacraments and Discipline The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him So that the present Separatists who deny that are gone beyond him and are fallen back to the Principles of the Rigid Separation Robinson succeeded though not immediately Iacob in his Congregation at Leyden whom some make the Father of Independency But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church it spread into New England for Mr. Cotton saith They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth and that Model was followed by other Churches there at Salem Boston Watertown c. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth That Robinson 's Denyal of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches either by reason of their mixt corrupt matter or for defect in their Covenant or for excess in their Episcopal Government was never received into any heart from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams he hath these words That upon due consideration he cannot find That the Principles and Grounds of Reformâ—tion do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches as false Churches from their Ministery as a false Ministry from their Worship as a false Worship from all their Professors as no visible Saints Nor can I find that they do either necessarily or probably conclude a Separation from Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches yet by his Actual Separation from them he shewed that really he did not and he adds that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puritan Principles saying That Mr. Can hath unanswerably proved That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies and profaneness of People professing Christ
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue church-Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
us From whence there are these things to be considered by us which may be of some use in our following Discourse 1. That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it This I have proved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse that those who deny it may with the help of the same Metaphysicks deny That the Sun shines 2. That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Vnion of the Church to go as far as they were able This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists but by the most rigid Separatists of former times and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful and thought so to be by the persons who Separate is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age but what new Reasons they have for it besides Noise and Clamour I am yet to seek 3. That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled provided that they have used the best means for a right information 4. That where occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them For say they to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn seemeth to be a most unjust Separation 5. That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and downright Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren Sect. 16. From all this it appears that the present practice of Separation can never be justified by the old Non-conformists Principles nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former is clear from undeniable Evidence and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries For although they endeavour all they can to blind the Readers Judgment with finding out the disparity of some circumstances which was never denied yet not one of them can deny that it was their Judgment That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was Vnlawful and Schismatical And this was the point for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon and it still stands good against them For their resolution of the case doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches which must have equal force at all times although there happen a great variety as to some circumstances For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded as to one circumstance or another the general case as to Separation is the same whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation on their Account it comes at last to the same point Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations as the Dissenting Brethren did because of some Scruples of Conscience in them and is it not equally unlawful in others who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead although they relate to different things I will put this case as plain as possible to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience one of them pleads that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy another saith His People do not scruple that but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross or Kneeling at the Communion a third saith If all these were away yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted as to matter and form they must have a Congregation of their own a fourth goes yet farther and saith Let their Congregation be constituted how it will if they allow Infant-Baptism they can never joyn with them nor saith a fifth can we as long as you allow Preaching by set forms and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses and such like Human Inventions Here are now very different scruples of Conscience but Doth the nature of the case vary according to the bare difference of the Scruples One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit is Separation on that account lawful No say all other Parties against the Quakers because their scruples are unreasonable But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism No say the Presbyterians and Independents that is an unreasonable Scruple Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship No saith the Presbyterians this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation and if they can joyn occasionally with us they are bound to do it constantly or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei and not from the meer error or mistake of Conscience But at last the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England and if they do not either they must desire a separate Congregation on the account of their Scruples as to the Ceremonies and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Vnreasonable as they do those of the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers Or else they declare They can joyn occasionally in Communion with our Church but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them with respect to our Church as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren with respect to themselves For no disparity as to other Circumstances can alter the nature of this Case viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what denomination soever the persons pass For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances but in the nature of the Act because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful As will fully appear by the following Discourse Those Men therefore speak most
any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers One would think that their warning had been fair but Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam The Lord have Mercy upon us 2. When the matter is throughly examined the difference between the Teachers and the old Separatists will be found not near so great as is pretended For what matter is it as to the nature of Separation whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or Vnlawful whether the Ministery of our Church be called a False Ministery or Insufficient Scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments which the old Separatists used only they are disguised under another appearance and put into a more fashionable dress As will be manifest by Particulars 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministry of our Church Sect. 4. I. Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation yet make the terms of lay-Lay-Communion for Persons as Members of our Church to be unlawful For Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church And in the same Book he saith It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the Transient Sign of the Cross or for want of Godfathers c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who Separate in these things are not For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers which they take to be no small sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them And what is this but formal Separation But for all this Mr. B. may hold that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical for he saith it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practises and Persons if those be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them But here Mr. B. saith There is a necessity of departure and to joyn with other Pastors and therefore he must hold a formal Separation And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church that was never done by the greatest Separatists For they all held Communion in Faith with it And even Brown the Head of the old Separatists thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship and others thought they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion but not in Acts of Church Communion others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers though not in others and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful they must hold a necessity of Separation or that persons may be good Christians and yet be no Members of any Church For if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours If they declare themselves Members of another Church they own as plain a Separation as the old Separatists ever did if they do not and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members then they are Members of no Church at all So that if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they must either be Separatists or no good Christians upon their own Principles For saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country this were to exchange visible Christianity for visible at least Negative Paganism Now that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they are more forward to declare than I could have imagined In my Sermon I mentioned some passages wherein it seemed clear to me that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me some declaring in express terms That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches and of joyning to other Congregations And others saying That such a Concession viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful taken in their own sense will neither do them any harm nor us any service For as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 1. Many of them declare so and many declare otherwise And it 's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it 2. They dâ—clare Communion lawful but. Dâ— they declare Total Communion lawful The same Persons will tell us that both these Propositions are â—â—ue Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of Worship is so in others not And 3. Thâ—y will further tell us That Communion with some Parish chuâ—ches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines Preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together 1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful and that must be understood of any kind of Communion for the Second sort from whom they are distinguishâ—d hold total Communion unlawful and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's and the New-England way and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists 2. Those that do hold Communion lawful do it with so many restrictions and limitations that in practice it amounts to little more than the other For First It is only with some Churches and those it seems must be such as do not hold to our Constitution for he
I do not understand For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right especially a small part against the whole in one case then in the other Which makes me wonder at those who daâ—e call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any Men do enjoy their Estates And they who assert that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to adhere to their former Pastors as Mr. A. doth who saith They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws passed by general consent in Parliament but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation For the Papists then had the very same Plea that these Men have now vâ—z That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation between their former Church Guides and them and thereforâ— notwithstanding Acts of Parliament they were still hound to adhere to them For the Magistrate had no power in such matters and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers So much do these Men in pursuing the interests of their Parties overthrow the principles of the Reformation For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers and to put others in their places or he hath none if he hath none then What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation when the Popish Bishops and Priests were ejected and others put into their places If they say He hath a just power in some cases but not in theirs Is not this a Plea common to all For whoever thought themselves justly ejected Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment What then is to be done in this case if Men think themselves unjustly cast out The old Non-conformists said They ought to sit down quietly with this satisfaction that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly although they did not They might by joyning in their private capacities in Communion with our Churches and drawing the People to it by their example and encouragement have done more good both to the People and to this Church than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either But if they go upon such principles â—s these That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them That others are Vsurpers who come in their places That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws And that 't is Schism to separate from them notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our publick Assemblies I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians This I the rather insist upon because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it but that it is made the standing Plea for the necessity of the present Separation among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question Whether they can be said to erect new Churches or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations who were true Ministers and had their Congregations before others came into their places If they had done nothing worthy of ejection or exclusion from their Ministry whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function And consequently whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them as they are charged with the same practice There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned if Ministers be ejected without or against Law they who come into their places are no Usurpers and if they are cast out by Law they that succeed them are Usurpers so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration Secondly All those who come into any Pastoral charge whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings Nomination or others by the Presentation of Patrons are Vsurpers unless the People be pleased to give their free consent and if they do it not they may lawfully withdraw from them For saith Mr. B. the People have an antecedent Right to consent which none can take from them And he saith he hath proved it by many Canons that he was no Bishop that was not chosen by the Clergy and the People or came in without the Peoples consent Nay if they have the consent of some and not of the greater part those who did not consent may proceed to choose another Bishop if Mr. B. say true For these are his words If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People or 50000 or 20000 as ye will suppose and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters and a Thousand People or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or Consent of the Diocesan Church nor is it Schism for twenty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling as Mr. A. suggests there is nothing hinders them but that in spite of Laws they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops and new Pastors of Churches wherever they think they can make the Majority For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People say they to choose their own Pastors Again saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea If Bishops that have no better a Foundation i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination and not by the Majority of the People shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches and command the Peoples acceptance and obeâ—â—â—nce i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presentation the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom It is plain then all Bishops of the Kings Nomination all Ministers presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers the People may give them a good Title if they please but they are not to blame if they do it not For in them Mr. B. saith the chief Power is and sometimes he tells them they are bound to Separate however while they do not consent they are no Churches which they are set over and it is no Schism so to pronounce them nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace and the true and only way of Concord which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions only that they might have some pretence for their present Separation Sect. 12. 3.
Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent implicit at least of the People and so are no Vsurpers yet if they be Persecutors or Ithacian Prelatists i.e. if they either act towards or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists the People may Separate from them When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book called The Cure of Divisions to satisfie the People who were much displeased with him for it one of the material Questions he Asks about his Book is Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors As though that had been an unpardonable Crime In the Plea he saith If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin i.e. Conformity but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this persecution appears by the example he makes of me for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers and declared I intended only to speak of Lay-communion yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design And by such consequences all that speak against Separation may be Separated from as Persecuters and Ithacian Prelatists Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them But in this case we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful Ignorance or error of Conscience That there is a real distinction between these two is evident and that it ought to be considered in this case appears from hence that else there can be no sinful separation under an erroneous Conscience As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass and much more Praying by one was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time as Praying by a Form was in point of words and all Men should be required to begin the publick Worship at such an Hour and so end at such an Hour time being a necessary circumstance our Brethren grant that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it Here is then a lawful imposition and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to any certain time On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case Not on the Imposers because they grant such an imposition lawful therefore it must lie on those that Separate although they judge such terms of Communion sinful If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power as the necessary circumstances of time and place c. then mens apprehending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side and not on the imposers Because it is to be supposed that where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary care and judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required As for instance when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful condition of Communion but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy and Ceremonies which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion Where is the prohibition In the same Second Commandment say some I desire them to read it over to me They do so Where say I are the words that forbid a Liturgy or Ceremonies I am mistaken they tell me it is not in the words but in the sense I Ask How we should come by the sense but from the words Yes they say there are certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments Are they Divine or Human Where are they to be found What are those Rules One they say is that where any thing is forbidden something is commanded So say I there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image What is there more Yes say they 1. That we must not Worship God with our own Inventions now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions But I say no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God but such as God himself hath somewhere forbidden but he hath no where forbidden these And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God but then 1 They are such inventions which go about to represent God and so to disparage him and no other inventions are to be understood than the Reason of the Law doth extend to i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God 2. They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law For otherwise all use of mens inventions as to Preaching or Reading or Interpreting Scripture would be forbidden And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful because it is a meer Invention of Men as much as Liturgies or Ceremonies By this we see what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be to make Liturgies or Ceremonies unlawful terms of Communion And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain prejudices of Education or Reading only one sort of Books and taking some things for granted which they ought not before they can esteem the terms of Communion required by our Church to be sinful and therefore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily Deluded and then Separate from our Church upon it But there is another plain instance in this case wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism Many of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful On whose side doth the Schism lie on theirs that require the allowance of it as a condition of Communion or not If on the Imposers side they must condemn themselves who blame the Anabaptists for their Separation And so did Fr. Iohnson and so did the New-England Churches From whence it appears that they do all agree that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side but on those that separate
Therefore this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so but till these are brought forth which never yet were or ever will be they must bear the blame of the Schism if they Separate on these accounts Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches rather than Communion with them which I have discover'd to be of that Nature as leads Men to the greatest Separation Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously and so need the less pains to discover their minds and those are II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful But there is a difference among these For First Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers but not in the Liturgy or any proper Act of church-Church-Communion This I have shewed was the Opinion of Robinson and the New-England Churches and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye who Wrote a Discourse about it and answered all Objections Yea he goes so far as to own the publick preaching as a great blessing to the Nation and he thinks the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent as they have liberty and opportunity the more publick and National Ministry But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People to be of another opinion which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them and he was a very sagacious Man Secondly Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship And some are arrived to that height that one of my Answerers confesseth That they refuse to hear him because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches It seems then they not only think it unlawful to hear us but to hear those who think it lawful and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry and our Ministers Antichristian which Mr. Nye was so far from owning that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian because the Articles of our Religion to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions are Orthodox and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down the State of the present Controversie as to Separation from our Communion will soon appear And any one may now discern 1. That I do not mean bare local Separation For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No I do assure him provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings as having a purer way of worship and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too who after his trifling manner talks of a bellum Parochiale as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it 2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine not determin'd by our Church upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it And I wonder who ever did But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination went no farther thâ—n the Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatcht but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty art made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism 3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live This is to Answer Mr. B's Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches and publick and private administrations of Sacraments But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner that they may go off the better with the common people And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes But what is all this to the purpose If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London than he wears in the Countrey Is he not the same Man for all that Are not David's Psalms the same whether they be Sung or Said Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune or as set by a Parish Clerk That which only looks like Argument and my business is to mind nothing else possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing That I say which looks like Argument is That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation This proceeds upon a mistake for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules suppose there are some different Customs among us What is this to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches To the choosing of new Pastors and sitting down as he speaks with purer Administrations All which this Man owns in his Book as their avowed Principles and Practices and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church with the different Modes of Worship among our selves He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner 4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches but have certain priviledges allowed them as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came But what have
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
to be a Member of those Churches and thought it lawful to communicate some times constant communion would be a Duty But because this seems so hard to be understood I will therefore undertake to prove it by these Two Arguments First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church Secondly From the particular force of that Text Philipp 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church If it be possible saith St. Paul as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask If there be not as great an obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church as with all Men and they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them And is not that possible and lies in them to do which they acknowledge lawful to be done and can do at some times What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles And cannot these prevail with Men to do that which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do towards joyning in Communion with us This I am perswaded 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 When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority they refused it and they have been more and more backward ever since till now they seem generally resolved either to break all in pieces or to persist in Separation Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this i. e. saith he They did not enter their several Protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them And so they have been advising and considering ever since till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it and the meer necessity of defending their own practices makes them espouse these Principles Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith they had after the Plague and Fire at which they agreed That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy and wronging the Relator by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence viz. When it would not do more harm than good And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place he will find I did consider the force of those words when I put it that they resolved it to be lawful in it self although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it For they declared That it was in it self lawful and meet but the circumstances of that time did make them think it might do more harm than good and therefore it is said They delaid for a fitter opportunity which makes it clear they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing But that opportunity hath never hapned since and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it as Mr. A. plainly doth by such reasons as these Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good 1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable As though Separation were more eligible than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable and Schism were not more intolerable than Communion with a tolerable Church What will not Men say in defence of their own practice Was ever Schism made so light a matter of And the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church were not fit to be put in the ballance against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience Methinks it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate than always thus subtil and witty against the common sence and reason of Mankind 2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches i. e. be drawn off from their Separation 3. When it will harden the Papists As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more 4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general Yes no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so By these particulars it appears that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do Yet at last he saith he tells us as much is done as their Consciences will permit them Say you so Is it indeed come to this Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy or to make use of any parts of it in your own Meetings How often hath Mr. B. told the World That you stuck not at Set-Forms nor at the Vse of the Liturgy provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting publickly in a Writing on purpose That they did not meet under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England and were he able he would accordingly Read himself Is this observed in any one Meeting in London or through England Then certainly there are some who do not what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea That they never made one Motion for Presbytery or against Liturgies and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians And since that Mr. B. saith They did come to an Agreement wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy with some Alterations was required And are we now told That all that can lawfully be done is done Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles in coming to our Liturgy but Where are all the rest And Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies Do they not hereby discover that they are more afraid of losing their People who force them to comply with their humors than careful to do what they judge lawful towards Communion with our Church Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass that any who think
occasional Communion with us to be lawful should not think themselves obliged to constant Communion From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord as Mr. B. saith That is a good ground so far as it goes But will it not carry a Man farther if he pursue it as he ought to do What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches and at the same time to declare That there is greater purity of Worship and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation But if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasional Presence at some times and in some Acts of Worship for saith Mr. Ball To use one Ordinance and not another is to make a Schism in the Church The only Example produced to justify such occasional Communion with defective Churches is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in the Iewish Synagogues and Temple But this is so far from being true that the old Separatists granted That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances living and dying a Member thereof and from thence they prove That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time And did not he declare That he came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfill it And that he complyed with Iohn 's Baptism because he was to fulfill all righteousness Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ierusalem as a Member of the Iewish Church and frequent the Synagogues Even at the Feast of Dedication though not instituted by the Law he was present as other Iews were Yea Did he not express more than ordinary zeal for purifying the outward parts of the Temple because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there as well as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use And Doth not the Apostle expresly say That he was made under the Law Where is there the least ground in Scripture to intimate that Christ only kept occasional and not constant communion with the Iewish Church What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses Chair Where did he ever bid them go thither when they could have no better but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Worship and better Means of Edification Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs Is there any pretence for greater Edification now to be mention'd with what the Disciples had to forsake the Iewish Assemblies for the love of Christ 's own Teaching Yet he would not have them to do that out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teaching Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples Occasionally and at certain Seasons but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies And so it was after his Passion till the Holy Ghost feâ—l upon them and they were then imploy'd to gather and form a new Church which was not done before and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes That we never read of Christ 's Praying together with his Disciples unless perhaps at his Transfiguration with three of his Disciples although we often read of his Praying alone So that no example can be mention'd which is more directly contrary to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds than that of our Blessed Saviour's which ought to be in stead of all others to us Sect. 19. 2. I argue from the particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things From whence it appears evident that Men ought to go as far as they can towards Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity To take off the force of the Argument from this place several Answers have been given which I shall now remove so that the strength of it may appear to remain notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it Some say That the Apostles words are to be understood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge and the different conceptions and opinions which they had concerning the Truths of the Gospel Thus Dr. O. understands the Text whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expressed but as far as I can apprehend his meaning he makes this to be the Apostles viz. I. That although the best Christians in this life cannot attain to a full measure and perfection in the comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel or the enjoyment of the things contained in them yet they ought to be pressing continually after it II. That in the common pursuit of this design it is not to be supposed but the Men will come to different attainments have different measures of light and knowledge yea and different conceptions or opinions about these things III. That in this difference of opinions those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other as far as they had attained they should walk by the same Rule namely which he had now laid down and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them From whence he infers That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with Schism who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel do yet dissent from others in some things that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded And again he saith The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties is that whereunto they have attained wherein they do agree which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things that is forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ which saith he is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists For the clearing of this matter there are Three things to be debated 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or different practises 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual forbearance 3. How far the Apostles Rule hath an influence on our present case First Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or of different practises For the right understanding of this we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for Separation from a Church wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship for if they be not such Separation must be a formal Schism because
such persons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church but set up other Churches of their own Now the way I shall take to shew the insufficiency of these Causes of Separation shall be by shewing the great Absurdities that follow upon the allowance of them These Five especially I shall insist upon 1. That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation 2. That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches 3. That it justifies the antient Schism's which have been always condemned by the Christian Church 4. That it makes Separation endless 5. That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church Sect. 22. 1. The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation Which I shall make appear not from the Testimonies of our own Writers who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church but from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France who can be the least suspected of partiality to our Church I begin with Calvin against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken 1. In the General He assigns two marks of the Visible Church the Word of God truly Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institution 2. He saith Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to humane conveniencies 3 That although those stand as Members of particular Churches who may not be thought worthy of that Society till they are duly cast out yet the Churches themselves having these Marks do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches and ought to be so esteemed 4. Men ought not to Separate from or break the Vnity of such Churches And he hath this notable saying upon it God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments And a little after he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ a destruction of his Truth a mighty provocation of his Anger a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks 5. That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church yet as long as it retains those Marks Separation from it is not justifiable nay although some of those faults be about Preaching the Word and Administration of Sacraments for saith he all truths are not of equal moment but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept up Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss continuing in the Communion of the Church and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it And he at large proves what great allowance is to be made as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches and he saith Mens Moroseness in this Matter although it seems to flow from zeal yet it much rather comes from Spiritual Pride and a false opinion of their own holiness above others Although saith he there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah yet they never set up new Churches nor erected other Altars whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices but whatever the People were as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them they lifted up pure hands to God although in such an impure Society The same he proves as to Christ and his Apostles From whence he concludes That Separation from such Churches where the true Word of God and Sacraments are is an inexcusable fault But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it and the Worship of God so corrupted that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness And the truth of the Gospel being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communion of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions especially when they Anathematize those who will not comply with them But doth he mean any indifferent Rites or Ceremonies where the Doctrine is sound No but False Doctrine and Idolatrous Worship as he frequently declares And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed and some Corruptions remaining in it must overthrow the fundamental grounds of the Reformation as they are explained by Calvin himself Sect. 23. Among their later Writers no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology And the Grounds he goes upon are these 1. That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those who go about to destroy and ruin Christianity 2. If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith offends our Consciences and overthrows the service which we believe due to God if the differences have been small and such as we might safely have yielded unto then he will grant that their Separation was rash and unjust and they guilty of the Schism 3. He proves that they had weighty reasons for their Separation which are these 1. Imposing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith and yet not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation but such as are pernicious and destructive to Salvation for which he instanceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Presence in the Sacrament which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments nor requires the adoring it it neither divides nor mutilates it nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin all which follows from the Popish Doctrine From whence he concludes That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors is an unjust Separation 2. Requiring such Worship as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity which saith he proves the necessity of our Separation and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host which the Church of Rome strictly requiring and the Protestants believing it to be a meer Creature they cannot give it without Idolatry from whence he concludes our Separation to be â—ust because it was necessary Besides this he gives instances in the
Worship of Images Invocation of Saints c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not depend on any such Ceremonies as ours are nor on the want of Discipline nor on the bare Dissatisfaction of Conscience but on such great and important Reasons as obtruding new Articles of Faith and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Communion of the Roman Church Amyraldus goes so far as to say That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in its communion For saith he a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions if he be otherwise faithful and skilful But if he mixes Poison with his Medicines and besides adds abundance of Prescriptions both needless and chargeable then the Patient hath great reason to look out for better help and to take care of his own safety and freedom By which he plainly declares that bare Ceremonies although many more than ours are no sufficient Ground for Separation Of late years a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation charging it with Schism because of the Separation from the Roman Church which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines M. Claude M. Pajon and M. Turretin But Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Doctrine is sound the constant use of Liturgy bare neglect of Discipline c. No they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these which they knew could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men if they could have alledged no more Substantial Reasons than these But they all agree in such common reasons which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justifiable viz. Great corruption in Doctrine Idolatrous Worship and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith No slight errors no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine not any corruption of Manners nor defect in Government or Discipline are sufficient grounds for Separation In one word saith he the Patient is not to be forsaken unless his Disease be deadly and infectious nor then neither but with great difficulty Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists goes upon these 3 grounds 1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent and without Anathematizing all those who have opposed them For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith 2. That the Publick Worship practised and allowed in that Church is Idolatrous he instanceth in Adoration of the Host the Worship of Saints and Images 3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpations of the Pope Let our Brethren now consider what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them but only that we could not have our Children Baptized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross nor receive the Communion without kneeling that we must observe Holy-days and use a Liturgy and that Men are not so good as they should be nor Discipline so exact as were to be wished How should we be hissed and laughed at all over the Christian World if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church but such things as these And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allegations they are harden'd in their own ways and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these by which unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation Sect. 24. 2. This Pretence of Separation would make Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are For the Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies and Vnscriptural Impositions as they are called than our Church hath They use the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Communion and the observation of Holy-days and times of Fasting and Set-Forms of Prayer c. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most reformed Churches by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad and at home I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love as Dr. O. speaks but to joyn together so as to make the same Bodies of Churches A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared that there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own opinions or Practices Which shews that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation for then they would not have admitted them as Members of the Lutheran Churches but have told them they ought to forsake their Communion and embrace that of the Reformed Churches Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines who have projected or perswaded an Vnion with the Lutheran Churches and others and see if any of them make the particulars mention'd any cause of Separation from them The Helvetian Churches declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger Myconius and Grynaeus and subscribed afterwards by all their Ministers and by those of Geneva and other places And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things yet say they because of our consent in Doctrine these things cause no Breach in our Churches And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremonies used in the Lutheran Churches except those of the Mass and Images in Churches At Sendomir in Poland A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian Auspurg Bohemian Confessions came to a full agreement so as to make up one Body notwithstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them which they say ought not to break the Communion of Churches as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine and the same foundation of Faith and Salvation and for this they appeal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions The Auspurg Confession declares That agreement in Doctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Churches Vnity then Separation cannot be lawful meerly on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditions And the Confession of Strasburg saith
That they look on no Human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men otherwise if they agree with Scripture and be appointed for good ends although they be not expresly mention'd in Scripture they are rather to be looked on as Divine than Human and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself nay they say though the Laws seem very hard and unjust a true Christian will not stick at obeying them if they command nothing that is wicked Ioh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremonies The First Commanded The Second Forbidden The Third neither Commanded nor Forbidden The Vnity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First and yet for every omission the Communion of the Church is not to be broken The Second breaks the Churches Vnity yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men but for the Third Men ought not to break the Vnity of the Church And in another place he gives particular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches the Exorcism in Baptism the Linnen Garments and Wax Candles the Holy-days and Confession c. and declares That we ought not to break off communion with Churches or make a Schism for these things Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of indifferent ceremonies and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches Amyraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Lutheran Churches saith That those which came in use after the Apostolick times have no other obligation on us than that for the sake of indifferent things though at first appointed out of no necessity nay though there be inconveniency in them yet the Churches Peace ought not to be disturbed And he very well observes That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so or at least are tolerable if it be false then they are troublesome and not to be born if it be impure and lead to Idolatry then the ceremonies are tainted with the Poyson of it But saith he the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches as their occasions serve and so do others And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine not only congratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland but Pray'd for the same in Germany too as Bishop Davenant tells us who proves at large that there is no sufficient Reason to hinder it which he makes to lie only in three things I. Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences II. The Practise of Idolatry III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear And now I desire our Brethren who justifie their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful to reflect upon these things Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad which have harder Terms of communion than we What would they think of the Exorcism of Infants of Auricular Confession of Images in Churches and some other things besides what are observed among us Do we want Discipline Do they not in other Churches abroad The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Vnion of Protestant Churches declared That little or none was observed among them Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Vnion with them For What Vnion can be justifiable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful They may pity them and pray for them and wish for their Reformation but an Vnion doth suppose such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may communicate in another Do they allow this to the Lutheran Churches If not then they render Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible because unlawful If they do will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to our own Church Can they think Separation necessary from our Church on those grounds which are common to us with other Protestant Churches and yet think Vnion desirable and possible with them notwithstanding Do they think that 〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Lutheran Churches although they have the Cross in Baptism Kâ—eâ—â—g at the Communion the Surpless and other Ceremonies which we have not and yet Is it necessary to Sâ—parate from our Churches Communion on the account of such things as these where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion Either therefore they must differ from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and the most emineâ—â— Protestant Divines abroad or they must renounce this Principle of Separation Sect. 25. 3. This will justifie the ancient Schisms which have been always condemn'd in the Christian Church For setting aside the Ceremonies of which already and the use of the Liturgy and Holy-days which is 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 Vniversal consent in all parts of the Christian World the other Reasons for Separation are such which will justifie the greatest Schismaticks that ever were in the Christian Church viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and due means of Edification and depriving the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel in providing for their own Edification For What gave occasion to the Novatian Schism which began so soon and spread so far and continued so long but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and better means of Edification and humoring the People in the choice of their own Pastors There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on as to Evangelical Discipline 1. The Power of the Keys 2. The Purity of the Church 1. As to the Power of the Keys they said That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church but under certain restrictions which if Men exceeded the Church had no Power to release them and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men when Men fell in time of Persecution 2. The Churches Purity ought to be preserved by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being receiv'd into communion again They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance but they said the Church could not And this they pleaded would tend very much to the Edification of Christians and would make them more watchful over
themselves when they saw no hopes of recovering the Churches Communion if they once fell from it Add to this that Novatus or Novatianus for the Greeks confounded their Names in his Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria saith That he was forced to do what he did by the importunity of the Brethren who out of their zeal for the Purity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline would not comply with the looser part which joyned with Cornelius and therefore chose him to be their Bishop And so much appears by Pacianus that Novatus coming from Carthage to Rome makes a party there for Novatiaâ—us in opposition to Cornelius which consisted chiefly of those who had stood firmest in the Persecution in their Name he Writes to Novatianus declaring That he was chosen by the zealous Party at Rome whereas Cornelius had admitted the lapsed to Communion and consequently corrupted the Discipline of the Christian Church Here we have a concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas Zeal for Reformation of Discipline the greater Edification of the People and the asserting their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was not likely to promote their Edification But notwithstanding these fair pretences the making a Separation in the Church was every where condemned as a great Sin as appears by St. Cyprian Dionysius of Alexandria Theodoret Epiphanius and others Dionysius tells the Author of the Schism that he had better have suffer'd any thing than thus to have made a Rent in the Church and it was as glorious a Martyrdom to die to prevent a Schism as to avoid Idolatry and he thinks it a much greater thing the one being a Martyrdom for the Church the other only for ones own Soul St. Cyprian charges those who were guilty of this Schism with Pride and Arrogance and doing unspeakable mischief to the Church by breaking the Peace of it and will hardly allow those to be Christians who lived in such a Schism when as Epiphanius observes they still pleaded they had the same Faith with the Catholick Church and yet St. Cyprian will not allow that to be true Faith which hath not charity and saith That there can be no true charity where Men do thus break in pieces the Vnity of the Church The Meletians in Aegypt agreed with the Catholick Christians in the Substantials of Religion holding the same Faith with them as Epiphanius relates the Story and their Schism began too about preserving the Discipline of the Church and the best means for the Edification of the People They allowed a Restitution for the lapsed to the Communion of the Church but after a very severe Discipline and an utter incapacity of those in Orders as to any parts of their Functions But Peter Bishop of Alexandria thought the milder way the better whereupon a Separation followed and the Meletians had distinct Churches which they called The Churches of the Martyrs This Schism grew to that height that they would not pray together in Prison nor in the Quarries whither they were sent Meletius being a Bishop was deposed by Peter of Alexandria but he went on still to promote the course of Separation in Thebais and other parts of Egypt upon which the Council of Nice in their Synodical Epistle deprived him of all Episcopal Power and the People that adhered to him of the Power of choosing their own Pastors or rather of proposing the names of those who were to be ordained And so according to Dr. O. they had just cause to continue their Separation still although it were condemned by the Council of Nice Audaeus began his Schism out of a mighty zeal for the Discipline of the Church and a great freedom which he used in reproving the faults of the Bishops and Clergy but meeting with ill usage he withdrew from the Churches communion with his Disciples although he still retained the same Faith and agreed in the Substantials of Religion with the best Christians but forbore all communion with them which Epiphanius accounts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most dreadful thing in the World and yet upon Dr. O's Principles of Separation they did a very commendable thing as long as their design was to restore the Churches Discipline and to consult their own greater Edification The followers of Eustathius Sebastenus are on this account likewise excused who withdrew from the publick Congregations on a pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia and stand condemned in several Canons of the Council at Gangrae so are those mention'd and condemn'd in the Councils of Constantinople and Carthage and the Separation of Felicissimus and his Brethren from St. Cyprian all which are set down together in my Sermon but are gently passed over by Dr. O. and Mr. B. and the rest of their Adversaries Only one saith That the Errors of the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus both in Opinion and Practise were very gross which the Council takes notice of and condemns Yet as gross as they were there was a pretence of greater Sanctity and Purity in them For their abstaining from Marriage and peculiarity of Habits and Separate Meetings were all carried on with the same Pretence To proceed then On the same accounts the Donatists will be vindicated in the main grounds of their Schism although they were mistaken in the matter of fact concerning Coecilian for their great pretence was to preserve the purity of the Churches Discipline as may at large be seen in Optatus and St. Augustin and yet they frequently and deliberately call it a most Damnable and Sacrilegious Schism The Luciferians pretended such a zeal for the true Faith and the Discipline of the Church that the only pretence for their Schism was that they could not communicate with those who had subscribed to Arianism or received Ordination from Ariâ—n Bishops as may be seen at large in the Book of Marcellinus and Faustinus And they joyned with the party of Vrsinus at Rome against that of Damasus and complained they were deprived of the liberty of choosing their own Pastors So that upon these grounds there hath scarce been any considerable Schism in the Christian Church but may be justified upon Dr. Owens Reasons for Separation from our Church Sect. 26. 4. Another Argument against this course of Separation is That these grounds will make Separation endless Which is to suppose all the Exhortations of Scripture to Peace and Vnity among Christians to signifie nothing For nothing being more contrary to Vnity than Division and Separation if there be no bounds set but what the fancies of Men dictate to them be sufficient Grounds to justifie Division and Separation any People may break Communion with a Church and set up a new one when they think fit which will leave the Christian Church in a remediless condition against those who break its Peace and Communion It being a true saying of Mr. Cottons of New-England That they that separate from their Brethren farther than they have just Cause shall at length
find cause or at lest think they have found cause just enough to separate one from another I never heard saith he of any instance to the contrary either in England or Holland The substance of this I had objected before in the Preface to my Sermon To which Mr. A. Replies after this manner That though some petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies some little trouble may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds yet this is no Reason why they should enslave their Iudgments or Consciences to others And Is this all the Antidote against the Mischief of Separation Is it a Sin to break the Churches Communion or Is it not If it be a Sin in some cases but not in others Why do you not shew us what those cases are and that it is a sinful Separation in other cases but not in them But to talk of small inconveniencies by the levity of Peoples minds is Childish trifling and not Answering Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty inconvenience Is this an Answer becoming a Christian To swell every small imposition into a huge insupportable Mountain and to make themselves lie groaning under the weight of a Ceremony or two as though their very heart-strings were cracking and as if Nero had begun a fresh Persecution and at the same time to lessen the guilt of Division and Separation as though it were nothing but a little wantonness in the Lambs of their Flocks frisking up and down from one Pasture to another some small and inconsiderable inconveniencies may happen by it but not worth speaking of and it is pity they should be deprived of their pleasure for it What a rare Advocate had this Man been for the Novatians Donatiâ—ts Luciferians or what Schismaticks soever rent the Church in pieces in former times And supposing St. Cyprian and St. Augustine and other great opposers of the antient Schisms to be met together we may gather from these words and the Principles of Separation which he lays down after what manner he would accost them Alass saith he What do you mean Cyprian and Austin and other Reverend Fathers to talk with so much severity and sharpness against separation from the communion of the Church as though it were such a damnable sin such a sacrilegious impiety such a horrid wickedness Will you make no allowance to the levity and volubility of Mens Minds What! you would have Men enslave their Iudgments and consciences to others would you you would have us be meer Brutes to be managed by your Bit and Bridle If the Novatians do think your Discipline too loose Why should not they joyn together for stricter If Felicissimus and his Brethren dislike some things in the Church of Carthage Why may not they go to the Mountains for separate Meetings If the good People were imposed upon against their Wills in the choice of Cornelius Why may not they choose Novatian for their Pastor What a stir do you Cyprian make in your Epistles about keeping the Peace of the Church and submitting to your Rules of Discipline As though there were not more mischief in your imposing than in the Peoples separating And as for you Augustin Who can with patience read your long and fierce Declamations against the sober Donatists For there were mad hare-brained Fanaticks called Circumcellians who were troubled with more than ordinary levity and volubility running from place to place and taking away other Mens lives and their own too out of pure zeal These I grant have an extraordinary Worm which ought to be picked out in time but for the rest of the Brethren that only separate on the account of impurity which they apprehend in your Church Why should you be so severe against them Why do you so often cry out of the sacrilegiousness of this Schism we know no other sacriledge but the sacrilegious desertion of our Ministery in obedience to the Laws this is a Sacriledge we often talk of and tell the People it is far worse than robbing Church-Plate considering what precious Gifts we have But for the Sacriledge of Schism that we can never understand although I perceive you have it over and over besides many other hard words wherein you would seem to make it the greatest of all Wickedness and you say That God punished it more severely than Idolatry since those who were guilty of the latter were to be destroyed by the Sword but Schismaticks were swallowed up of the Earth as Corah and his Company Whereas we that have greater light look upon Separation but as an effect of the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and though some little trouble may come to the Church by it yet it is far better than submission to others impositions And is not this an intolerable imposition for you to force these honest Donatists to Communicate in a corrupt and impure Church as they do believe yours to be When the Cause was strictly examined at Carthage What was it their Party pleaded for but Purity of Discipline and that the Church was defiled for want of it and therefore they were forced to Separate for greater Purity of Ordinances And Is this the Damnable Devillish Sacrilegious Schism you talk of Methinks you should consider better the Mischief of your Impositions when you require Communion so strictly with you or else they must presently be Separatists and Schismaticks I pray Sirs have a little patience with me if I do not fetch off my good friends the Donatists in this matter we will all be content to be called Schismaticks as well as they For if our Principles do clear our selves I am sure they will do as good a turn for them Now the main Principles of our present Separation are these 1 That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to choose its own Pastor and every particular Christian the same Power to choose his own Church I say not to mischoose do you mark me but a power to choose not to choose any but one that may best advance their own Edification at lest that no Pastor be forced upon a Church no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent Now I pray consider Why might not Lucilla and Donatus and Botrus and Celeustus with their Party among the People at Carthage choose Majorinus for their Pastor although the rest had chosen Caecilian For they were not well satisfied with Mensurius his Predecessor whom they suspected for a Traditor but when they had their liberty to choose Why should they be debarred of their inherent right of choosing their own Pastor Why should Caecilian be obtruded upon them Why should not they choose one who would best advance their Edification For Caecilian was at lest under suspicion of compliance in time of Persecution and therefore for my part upon our Principles I think the Donatists very free from the charge of Schism 2. That it is
the duty of every Christian to Worship God not only in purity of heart but according to the purity of Gospel-Administrations Now observe that there was nothing the Donatists pleaded so much and so vehemently for as the purity of Gospel-Administrations This was that which Parmenian Petilian and the rest still contended for as appears by the Plea they put in for themselves in the last Conference at Carthage We are they say they that have suffer'd persecution for maintaining the Purity of the Church this hundred years because we would not comply with their corruptions we have been turned out of our Churches and been sent to Prison and had our Goods taken from us and some of our Brethren have been killed and others hardly used for so good a Cause And Can such Men as you condemn them for a horrible Schism I tell you they are as Innocent as our selves for they went upon the same grounds 3. That every Christian is obliged to live in the use of all God's Ordinances and Commandments Now Is not Discipline one of God's Ordinances And Do we not make want of Discipline one of the Reasons of our Separation And therefore the Donatists were very honest Men for they were just of our mind And these being the chief grounds we go upon we cannot but in Brotherly kindness speak this in vindication of them against your unreasonable severity I know you tell them often There will be no end of Separation upon these terms for why might not Maximiaâ—â—us do the same by Primianus that Majorinus did by Caecilian and so make frustum de frusto by which they did minutaâ—im concidere cut the Church into so many little pieces that could never be joyned together again But let me tell you that the force of your Argument comes to this That Men may choose one Pastor to day and another to morrow and a third the next and so turn round till they are giddy and run â—hemselves out of breath in a wild Goose chase till they sit down and rest in Irreligion and Atheism And is this all these are his own words The Apostle commands us to prove all things What! By running from one Communion to another Mâ—â—t we needs therefore never hold fast that which is good unsetled heads and unsetled hearts will be â—â—ndring let them go 't is a good riddance of them 〈◊〉 they be obstinate but where this humor has destroyed one Church this rigorous forcing of Pastors on the People as Caecilian on the People of Carthage has divided and destroyed hundreds Thus far the Advocate-General for Schismaticks Judge now Reader whether the Causes of the present Separation as they are laid down by my Adversary do not equally defend the Donatists in their Schism and his making so light a matter of Schisms doth not give encouragement to Men to make more Sect. 27. But I shall not send him so far back as St. Cyprian and St. Augustin for better instruction in this matter but I shall refer him to one whose Writings I perceive he is better acquainted with even Mr. Baxter Who hath very well in several Books set forth the great Mischief of Divisions and Separations He doth not look upon them as petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies little troubles to the Church the effects of levity and volubility of Mens Minds but he quotes above Forty places of Scripture against them and saith That the World the Flesh and the Devil are the causes from whence they come that they are as much the Works of the Flesh as Adulteries Fornications c. that contentious dividers are carnal Men and have not the Spirit that Divisions are the Wounding nay the Killing of the Church as much as lieth in the Dividers and that to Reform the Church by dividing it is no wiser than to cut out the Liver or Spleen or Gall to cleanse them from the filth that both obstruct them and hinder them in their Office that Divisions are the deformities of the Church the lamentation of Friends and the scorn of Enemies the dishonor of Christ and the Gospel the great hindrance of the Conversion and Salvation of the World and of the Edification of the Members of the Church That they fill the Church with sins of a most odious nature they cherish Pride and Malice and Belying others the three great Sins of the Devil as naturally as dead flesh breedeth Worms In a word the Scripture telleth us that where envying and strife is there is confusion and every evil work And is not this a lamentable way of Reformation of some imaginary or lesser evils Yet farther he saith They are uneasie to the persons themselves and rob them of the sweetest part of Religion they lead directly to Apostacy from the Faith and shake States and Kingdoms having a lamentable influence on the Civil Peace Is all this nothing but the natural effect of the levity or volubility of Peoples Minds This learned Author begins his Book with a very starched relation of his admirable Reading That in his time he hath read an Elegant Oration in praise of a Quartan Ague another upon the Gout a third upon Folly but there wants one yet in the praise of Schism and I never met with one that doth offer fairer toward it than he doth For he not only excuses it from the natural cause of it and the small trouble that attends it but he implies it to be the consequence of Mens using their Reason and not being made Bruits to be managed with a strong bit and bridle But Mr. Baxter will teach him another Lesson for he saith that Schism is a sin against so many and clear and vehement words of the Holy Ghost that it is utterly without excuse Whoredoms and Treason and Perjury are not oftner forbidden in the Gospel than this that it is contrary to the very design of Christ in our Redemption which was to reconcile us all to God and to unite and centre us all in him that it is contrary to the design of the Spirit of Grace and to the very nature of Christianity it self that it is a sin against the nearest bonds of our highest Relations to each other that it is either a dividing Christ or robbing him of a great part of his inheritance and neither of these is a little sin that it is accompanied with Self-ignorance and Pride and great unthankfulness to God that Church-dividers are the most successful servants of the Devil being enemies to Christ in his Family and Livery and that they serve the Devil more effectually than open enemies that Schism is a sin which contradicteth all Gods Ordinances and Means of Grace which are purposely to procure and maintain the Vnity of his Church That it is a sin against as great and lamentable experiences as almost any sin can be and this is a heinous aggravation of it that it is commonly justified and nâ—t repented of by those that commit it and it is
that Christ hath invested the Guides of this Church not chosen by the People with a Power to make Laws and Decrees prescribing not onely things necessary for common order and decency but new federal rites and teaching signs and symbols superadded to the whole Christian Institution c. I answer that such a Church hath Power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the word of God which on that account others are bound to submit to and to take such care of its preservation as to admit none to its privileges but such as do submit to them and if any disturb the Peace of this Church the Civil Magistrate may justly inflict civil Penalties upon them for it All which is no more than any settled Church in the world asserts as well as ours And I wonder this should be so continually objected against our Church which all Societies in the world think just and necessary for their own preservation As to the Guides of the Church not being chosen by the People I shall speak to that afterwards One objection more he makes which the others did not viz. I had said that by whole or National Churches I understood the Churches of such Nations which upon decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of Governing themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common ties and Rules of Order and Government Such Churches I say have a just right of Reforming themselves and therefore are not liable to the imputation of Schism from the Roman Church Would one think what unlucky Inferences he draws from hence 1. Then all that remain within the Empire were bound to continue in the Communion of the Roman Church What if I should deny the continuance of the Roman Empire then all would be safe But do I any where say that being in the Empire they were bound to submit to the Roman Church No but as the Nation resumed its just civil Rights the Church might as rightfully recover it self from Papal Vsurpations not laying the force of one upon the other but paralleling them together and the advantage of the argument is on the Churches side 2. Then where Princes have not resumed their just rights as to Reformation they are Schismaticks that separate from Rome That doth not follow for in the cases before mentioned separation is lawfull but no Reformation is so unexceptionable as when there is a Concurrence of the Civil Power My last Adversary doth not deny a National Church from consent in the same Articles of Religion and Rules of Government and Order of Worship but then he saith such ought to be agreeable to the established Rule of Holy Scriptures And therein we are all agreed So that after much tugging this point is thought fit to be given up Sect. 24. The next thing to be considered is the interest and Power of the People as to the choice of their Pastours for want of which great complaints are made by my Adversaries as a thing injurious to them and prejudicial to the Church and that we therein go contrary to all Antiquity Dr. O. puts the depriving the People of their liberty of choosing their Pastours among the Causes of Separation Mr. Baxter is very Tragical upon this argument and keeps not within tolerable bounds of discretion in pleading the People's Cause against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws and he tells me I go against all the ancient Fathers and Churches for many hundred years and am so far a Separatist from more than one Parish Priest and therefore my charge of them is schismatical and unjust and recoileth on my self who instead of God's Rule accuse them that walk not by our novel crooked Rules which may make as many modish Religions as there are Princes When I first read such passages as these I wonder'd what I had said that might give occasion to so much undecent Passion as every where almost discovers it self in his Answer and the more I consider'd the more I wonder'd but at last I resolved as Mr. A. doth about the Assembly that Mr. B. is but a man as other men are and for all that I see of equal passions and that upon little or no provocation For I had not said one word upon this Argument What then would Mr. B. seek a Cause to express his anger against me as if I had allowed Princes to set up what Religions they please Surely he thought himself writing against Hobbs and Spinosa then No but thus he artificially draws me into this snare I spake much against Separation How then They would never have separated if they had not been silenced therefore my being against their separation shews I am for their silencing As though these necessarily followed each other What is this to Princes imposing what Religion they please Thus Then Magistrates by their Laws may put out Nonconformists and put in Conformists But have we not the same Religion still But saith Mr. Baxter these must be my supposed Grounds that Magistrates may appoint what Religion they please and those are Separatists who do not obey them Is not this admirable ingenuity to rail upon a man for suppositions of his own making However Mr. Baxter will have it so let me say what I will The People's part he will take and let me take that of the Magistrates and Laws if I think good and since they are fallen to my lot I will defend them as well as I can as to this matter Mr. B. appearing very warm in this business what doth Mr. A. coming after him but make it the very first and fundamental Ground of their Separation viz. That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to choose its own Pastour and every particular Christian the same Power to chuse his own Church Nay then I thought we were in a very fair way of settlement when the Anabaptists in Germany never broached a looser principle than this nor more contrary to the very possibility of having an established Church for it leads to all manner of Schisms and Factions in spight of all Laws and Authority in Church or State The Authour of the Letter goes upon the same principle too and saith The Guides of the Church are to be chosen by the People according to Scripture and Primitive practice This I perceive is a popular argument and a fine device to draw in the common People to the dissenting Party whatever becomes of Laws and mens just and legal Rights of Patronage all must yield to the antecedent Right of the People But to bring this matter to a strict debate we must consider these three things 1. What Original or inherent Right and Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficient ground to resume it And from thence we shall understand whether some of the People's consenting to hear the Nonconformists
Evidence of Truth and without forsaking his Old Principles to justifie the Church of England from all imputation of Heresie or Schism and the Religion thereof as it stood by Law established from the like imputation of Novelty Wherein he professes to lay open the inmost thoughts of his heart in this sad business before God and the World I might shew by particular Instances from my present Adversaries that to defend their own practices they are driven to maintain such Principles as by evident consequences from them do overthrow the Justice and Equity of the Reformation but I leave those things to be observed in their proper places Yet I do not question the Sincerity of many Mens Zeal against Popery who out of too eager a desire of upholding some particular Fancies of their own may give too great advantage to our Common Enemies Three ways Bishop Sanderson observes our Dissenting Brethren though not intentionally and purposely yet really and eventually have been the great Promoters of the Roman Interest among us 1. By putting to their helping hand to the pulling down of Episcopacy And saith he it is very well known to many what rejoycing that Vote brought to the Romish Party How even in Rome it self they Sung their Jo-â—aeans upon the Tidings thereof and said Triumphantly Now the day is ours Now is the Fatal-Blow given to the Protestant Religion in England 2 By opposing the Interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason 3 By frequent mistaking the Question but especially through the necessity of some false Principle or other which having once imbibed they think themselves bound to maintain whatever becomes of the Common Cause of our Reformation Which may at last suffer as much through some Mens folly and indiscretion who pretend to be the most Zealous Protestants as by all the Arts and Designs of our open Enemies For as the same Learned and Iudicious Bishop hath said in this case Many a Man when he thought most to make it sure hath quite marred a good business by over-doing it Thus when the Papists of late years have not been able to hinder the taking many things into consideration against their interest it hath been observed that their Instruments have been for the most violent Counsels knowing that either they would be wholly ineffectual or if they were pursued they might in the end bring more advantage than prejudice to their Cause And it is to be feared they may still hope to do their business as Divines observe the Devil doth who when he finds one extreme will not do he tries whether he can compass his end by the other And no doubt they will extremely rejoyce if they can make some Mens Fears of Popery prove at last an effectual means to bring it about As some of the Jews of old out of a rash and violent zeal for the preservation of the purity of their Religion as they pretended by opposing the Sacrifices offer'd by Strangers and denying the use of the lawful Customs of their Country brought the Roman Power upon them and so hasten'd the destruction both of their Religion and Countrey too I do not mention this as though we could take too great care by good and wholsom Laws to strengthen the Protestant Interest and by that means to keep out Popery but only to shew what mighty prejudice an indiscreet Zeal at this time may bring upon us if Men suffer themselves to be transported so far as to think that overthrowing the Constitution of this Church will be any means to secure the Protestant Religion among us For What is it which the Papists have more envied and maligned than the Church of England What is it they have more wished to see broken in pieces As the late Cardinal Barberini said in the hearing of a Gentleman who told it me He could be contented there were no Priests in England so there were no Bishops for then he supposed their Work would do it self What is it they have used more Arts and Instruments to destroy than the Constitution and Government of this Church Did not Cranmer and Ridley and Hooper and Farrar and Latimer all Bishops of this Church suffer Martyrdom by their Means Had not they the same kind of Episcopacy which is now among us and which some now are so busie in seeking to destroy by publishing one Book after another on purpose to represent it as unlawful and inconsistent with the Primitive Institution Is all this done for the honor of our Reformation Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us to fill Mens Minds with such Prejudices against the first settlement of it as to go about to make the World believe that the Church-Government then established was repugnant to the Institution of Christ and that our Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches But Whither will not Mens Indiscreet Zeal and love of their own Fancies carry them especially after 40 years prescription I do not say such Men are set on by the Jesuits but I say they do their Work as effectually in blasting the credit of the Reformation as if they were And yet after all these pains and Forty years Meditations I do not question but I shall make it appear that our present Episcopacy is agreeable to the Institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Establishment Were not the same Ceremonies then appointed the same Liturgy in Substance then used concerning which Dr. Taylor who then suffered Martyrdom publickly declared That the whole Church-Service was set forth in King Edward ' s days with great deliberation by the Advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorised by the whole Parliament and Received and Published gladly through the whole Realm which Book was never Reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was so fully perfected according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained I mean saith he of that Book Reformed Yet this is that Book whose constant use is now pleaded by some together with our Ceremonies as a ground for the necessity of Separation from our Churches Communion But if we trace the Footsteps of this Separation as far as we can we may find strong probabilities that the Jesuitical Party had a great influence on the very first beginnings of it For which we must consider that when the Church of England was restored in Queen Elizabeth's Reign there was no open Separation from the Communion of it for several years neither by Papists nor Non-conformists At last the more Zealous Party of the Foreign Priests and Jesuits finding this Compliance would in the end utterly destroy the Popish Interest in England they began to draw off the secret Papists from all Conformity with our Church which the old Queen Mary's Priests allowed them in this raised some heat among themselves
but at last the way of Separation prevailed as the more pure and perfect way But this was not thought sufficient by these busie Factors for the Church of Rome unless they could under the same pretence of purity and perfection draw off Protestants from the Communion of this Church too To this purpose Persons were imployed under the disguise of more Zealous Protestants to set up the way of more Spiritual Prayer and greater Purity of Worship than was observed in the Church of England that so the People under these Pretences might be drawn into Separate Meetings Of this we have a Considerable Evidence lately offer'd to the World in the Examination of a Priest so imploy'd at the Council-Table A. D. 1567. being the 9th of Q. Elizabeth which is published from the Lord Burleighs Papers which were in the hands of Arch-Bishop Usher and from him came to Sir James Ware whose Son brought them into England and lately caused them to be Printed Two years after one Heath a Jesuit was Summon'd before the Bishop of Rochester on a like account for disparaging the Prayers of the Church and setting up Spiritual Prayers above them and he declared to the Bishop That he had been six years in England and that he had laboured to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer When he was seized on a Letter was found about him from a Jesuit in Spain wherein he takes notice how he was admired by his Flock and tells him they looked on this way of dividing Protestants as the most effectual to bring them all back to the Church of Rome and in his Chamber they found a Bull from Pius V. to follow the Instructions of the Society for dividing the Protestants in England and the License from his Fraternity There is one thing in the Jesuits Letter deserves our farther consideration which the Publisher of it did not understand which is that Hallingham Coleman and Benson are there mentioned as Persons imploy'd to sow a Faction among the German Hereticks which he takes to be spoken of the Sects in Germany but by the German Hereticks the English Protestants are meant i.e. Lutherans and these very Men are mentioned by our Historians without knowing of this Letter as the most active and busie in the beginning of the Separation Of these saith Fuller Coleman Button Hallingham and Benson were the chief At which time saith Heylin Benson Button Hallingham and Coleman and others taking upon them to be of more ardent Zeal than others c. That time is 1568 which agrees exactly with the Date of that Letter at Madrid October 26. 1568. And both these had it from a much better Author than either of them Camden I mean who saith That while Harding Sanders and others attacked our Church on one side Coleman Button Hallingham Benson and others were as busie on the other who under pretence of a purer Reformation opposed the Discipline Liturgy and Calling of our Bishops as approaching too near to the Church of Rome And he makes these the Beginners of those Quarrels which afterwards brake out with great violence Now that there is no improbability in the thing will appear by the suitableness of these Pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practices of the Jesuits For they are professed despisers of the Cathedral Service and are excused from their attendance on it by the Constitutions of their Order and are as great admirers of Spiritual Prayer and an Enthusiastick way of Preaching as appears by the History of the first Institution of their Order by Orlandinus and Maffeius They who are acquainted with their Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer will find that which is admired and set up here as so much above Set-Forms to be one of the lowest of three sorts among them That Gift of Prayer which Men have but requires the Exercise of their own Gifts to stir it up they call Oratio acquisita acquired Prayer although they say the Principle of it is infused The Second is by a special immediate influence of the Holy Ghost upon the Mind with the concurrence of infused habits The Third is far above either of these which they call the Prayer of Contemplation and is never given by way of habit to any but lies in immediate and unexpressible unions All these I â—ould easily shew to be the Doctrine received and magnified in the Roman Church especially by those who pretend to greater Purity and Spirituality than others But this is sufficient to my purpose to prove that there is no improbability that they should be the first setters up of this way in England And it is observable that it was never known here or in any other Reformed Church before this time and therefore the beginning of it is unjustly father'd by some on T. C. But by whomsoever it was begun it met with such great success in the zeal and warmth of devotion which appeared in it that no Charm hath been more effectual to draw injudicious People into a contempt of our Liturgy and admiring the Way of Separation When by such Arts the People were possessed with an Opinion of a more pure and Spiritual Way of Worship than was used in our Church they were easily drawn into the admiration of those who found fault with the Liturgy and Ceremonies that were used among us and so the Divisions wonderfully increased in a very short time And the Papists could not but please themselves to see that other Men did their VVork so effectually for them For the Authors of the Admonition 14 Elizab. declared They would have neither Papists nor others constrained to Communicate which although as Arch-Bishop Whitgift saith they intended as a Plea for their own Separation from the Church yet saith he the Papists could not have met with better Proctors And elsewhere he tells them That they did the Pope very good service and that he would not miss them for any thing For what is his desire but to have this Church of England which he hath Accused utterly defaced and discredited to have it by any means overthrown if not by Forrein Enemies yet by Domestical Dissention And What fitter and apter Instruments could he have had for that purpose than you who under pretence of zeal overthrow that which other Men have builded under color of Purity seek to bring in Deformity and under the Cloke of Equality and Humility would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over your Parishes as ever the Pope did over the whole Church And in another place he saith They were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave whereby they intend to overthrow this Church by our own Folly which they cannot compass by all their Policy Arch-Bishop Grindal as I find a Letter of his expressed his great fear of two things Atheism and Popery and both arising out of our needless Divisions and Differences fomented he doubts not by
Satan the Enemy of Mankind and the Pope the Enemy of Christendom By these differences the Enemies of our Religion gain this That nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion whose every part is opposed by one or other of her own Professors so that things continuing loose and confused the Papists have their opportunity to urge their way which is attended with Order and Government and our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided some vile wretches lay hold of the Arguments on one side to confute the other and so hope at last to destroy all Dr. Sutcliffe said long ago That Wise Men apprehended these unhappy Questions about Indifferent things to be managed by the subtle Jesuits thereby to disturb the Peace and Settlement of our Church until at last they enjoy their long expected opportunity to set up themselves and restore the exploded Tyranny and Idolatry of the Church of Rome Among Mr. Selden's MSS. there is mentionâ—d an odd Prophecy That Popery should decay about 1500 and be restored about 1700 which is there said to be most likely by means of our Divisions which threaten the Reformation upon the Interest of Religion and open advantages to the Enemies of it and nothing is there said to be so likely to prevent it as a firm establishment of sound Doctrine Discipline and Worship in this Church Among the Iesuit Contzens directions for reducing Popery into a Country the most considerable are 1. That it be done under a pretence of ease to tender Consciences which will gain a reputation to the Prince and not seem to be done from his own Inclination but out of kindness to his People 2. That when Liberty is granted then the Parties be forbid to contend with each other for that will make way the more easily for one side to prevail and the Prince will be commended for his love of Peace 3 That those who suspect the Design and Preach against it be traduced as Men that Preaâ—h very unseasonable Doctrine that theâ—â— are Proud Self-opiniators and Enemies to Peace and Union But the special Advice he gives to a Catholick Prince is 4. To make as much use of the Divisions of his Enemies as of the Agreement of his Friends How much the Popish Party here hath followed these Counsels will easily appear by reflection upon their behaviour these last Twenty years But that which more particularly reaches to our own case is the Letter of Advice given to F. Young by Seignior Ballarini concerning the best way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon His Majesties Restauration wherein are several very remarkable things This Letter was found in F. Young's Study after his death and was translated out of Italian and printed in the Collection before mention'd The First Advice is To make the Obstruction of Settlement their great design especially upon the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom whereunto if things should fall they would be more firm than ever 2. The next thing is To remove the jealousies raised by Prin Baxter c. of their design upon the late Factions and to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops 3. To make it appear under-hand how near the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of the Church of England comes to us at how little distance their Common-Prayer is from our Mass and that the wisest and ablest Men of that way are so moderate that they would willingly come over to us or at least meet us half way hereby the more stayed Men will become more odious and others will run out of all Religion for fear of Popery 4. Let there be an Indulgence promoted by the Factious and seconded by you 5. That the Trade and Treasure of the Nation may be engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties 6. That the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England be Aspersed as either Worldly and Careless on the one hand or so Factious on the other that it were well they were removed These are some of those excellent Advices then given and how well they have been followed we all know For according to this Counsel when they could not hinder the Settlement then The great thing they aimed at for many years was the breaking in pieces the Constitution of this Church by a General Toleration This Coleman owned at his Trial and after Sentence Declared That possibly he might be of an Opinion that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted The Author of the Two Conferences between L'Chese and the Four Jesuits owns the Declaration of Indulgence 1671 2 to be of the Papists procuring but he saith the Presbyterians presently suspected the Kindness and like wise Men closed with the Conformists and refused the Bait however specious it seemed when they saw the Hook that lay under it It was so far from this that when one of the furious Dissenters suspected the kindness and made Queries upon the Declaration wherein he represented it as a Stratagem to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government one of the more moderate Party among them Wrote a Publick Vindication of their accepting the Licences wherein he declared to the World in their Name That they were not concerned what the Secret Design might be so long as the thing was good And why saith he do you insinuate Jealousies Have not we Publick and the Papists only Private Allowance In fine we are thankful for the Honor put upon us to be Publick in our Meetings Was this the Suspicion they had of the Kindness and their Wisdom in joyning with the Conformists If such bold and notorious Vntruths are published now when every one that can remember but 8 years backward can disprove them What account may we expect will be given to Posterity of the Passages of these Times if others do not take care to set them right And I am so far from believing that they then closed with the Conformists that I date the Presbyterian Separation chiefly from that time For Did not they take out Indulgences Build Meeting Places and keep up Separate Congregations ever since And did not those who before seem'd most inclinable to hold Communion with our Churches then undertake in Print to defend the lawfulness of these Separate Meetings upon such Principles as will justifie any Separation Vpon this many of those who frequented our Churches before withdrew themselves and since they have formed and continued Separate Bodies and upon the death of one Minister have chosen another in his room And What is a Formal Separation if this be not Then the Ejected Ministers resorted to Cities and Corporations not to supply the necessities of those who wanted them but to gather Churches among them For a very credible Person informs us That in the City he lived in where there were not above 30 or 40 that ordinarily refused the Publick and met Privately before the Indulgence there were Ten Non-conformist Ministers that
whom they come Let now any impartial Reader Iudge who did most effectually serve the Papists Designs those who kept to the Communion of the Church of England or those who fell into the Course of Separation I will allow what Mr. Baxter saith That they might use their endeavors to exasperate the several Parties against each other and might sometimes press the more rigorous execution of Laws against them but then it was to set them at the greater distance from us and to make them more pliable to a General Toleration And they sometimes complained that those who were most adverse to this found themselves under the severity of the Law when more tractable Men escaped which they have weakly imputed to the implacable temper of the Bishops when they might easily understand the true Cause of such a discrimination But from the whole it appears that the grand Design of the Papists for many years was to break in pieces the Constitution of the Church of England which being done they flatter'd themselves with the hopes of great Accessions to their strength and Party and in order to this they inflamed the differences among us to the utmost height on purpose to make all the Dissenting Parties to joyn with them for a General Toleration which they did not question would destroy this Church and advance their Interest Whether they did judge truly in this I am not to determine it is sufficient that they went upon the greatest Probabilities But Is it possible to imagine such skilful Engineers should use so much Art and Industry to undermine and blow up a Bulwark unless they hoped to gain the place or at lest some very considerable advantage to themselves by it And it is a most unfortunate condition our Church is in if those who design to bring in Popery and those who design to keep it out should both conspire towards its destruction This which I have represented was the posture of our Church-Affairs when the late horrible Plot of the Papists for Destruction of the Kings Person and Subversion of our Religion came to be discover'd It seems they found the other methods tedious and uncertain and they met with many cross accidents many rubs and disappointments in their way and therefore they resolved upon a Summary way of Proceeding and to do their business by one blow VVhich in regard of the circumstances of our Affairs is so far from being incredible that if they had no such design it is rather a VVonder they had not especially considering the allowed Principles and Practices in the Church of Rome Upon the discovery of the Plot and the Means of Papists used confirm the Truth of it knowing our great proneness to Infidelity by the Murder of a worthy Gentleman who received the Depositions the Nation was extremely Alarm'd with the apprehensions of Popery and provoked to the utmost detestation of it Those who had been long apprehensive of their restless designs were glad to see others awaken'd but they seemed like Men roused out of a deep sleep being amazed and confounded fearful of every thing and apt to mistrust all persons who were not in such a Consternation as themselves During this heat some of us both in Private and Publick endeavor'd to bring the Dissenters to the sense of the necessity of Union among Protestants hoping the apprehension of present danger common to us all would have disposed them to a better inclination to the things which belong to our Peace But finding the Nation thus vehemently bent against Popery those who had formerly carried it so smoothly and fairly towards the common and innocent Papists as they then stiled them and thought them equally capable of Toleration with themselves now they fly out into the utmost rage against them and others were apt by sly insinuations to represent those of the Church of England some of whom had appeared with vigor and resolution against Popery when they were trucking underhand for Toleration with them as Papists in Masquerade But now they tack about and strike in with the violent Rage of the People and none so fierce against Popery as they VVhat influence it hath had upon others I know not but I confess it did not lessen my esteem of the Integrity of those of the Church of England that they were not so much transported by sudden heats beyond the just bounds of Prudence and Decency and Humanity towards their greatest Enemies having learnt from St. Paul That the wrath of Man worketh not the righteousness of God They expected as little favor from them as any if they had prevailed and I doubt not but some of them had been made the first Examples of their Cruelty However this was interpreted to be want of Zeal by those who think there is no Fire in the House unless it flame out at the VVindows and this advantage was taken by the inveterate Enemies of our Church to represent us all as secret friends to the Papists so improbable a Lie that the Devil himself would Blush at the Telling of it not for the Malice but the Folly and Ill Contrivance of it and those who were more moderate were content to allow 3 or 4 among the Bishops to be Protestants and about 4 or 5 among the Clergy of London To feed this humor which wonderfully spread among more of the People than we could have believed to have been so weak most of the Malicious Libels against the Church of England were Reprinted and dispersed and new ones added to them Among the rest one Translated out of French to prove the Advances of the Church of England towards Popery but so unhappily managed that those Persons are Chiefly Mention'd who had appeared with most zeal against Popery Yet so much had the Arts of some Men prevailed over the Iudgments of others that even this Discourse was greedily swallowed by them But I must do the Author of it that Right to declare that before his Death he was very sensible of the Injury he had done to some Worthy Divines of our Church therein and begged God and them Pardon for it Wherein as he followed the Example of some others who were great Enemies to our Church while they lived but repented of it when they came to die so I hope others upon better consideration will see reason to follow his But this was but an inconsiderable trifle in comparison of what follow We were still in hopes that Men so Wise so Self-denying as the Non-conformist Ministers represent themselves to the World would in so Critical a time have made some steps or advances towards an Union with us at lest to have let us known their Sense of the Present State of things and their Readiness to joyn with us as far as they could against the Assaults of a Common Enemy In stead of this those we Discoursed with seemed farther off than before and when we lest expected such a Blow under the Name of a Plea for Peace out comes a
up to a persecution of them There had been some color for this if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon and never intend to read it and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it They resolved to condemn it and therefore would see nothing that might have alter'd their Sentence It is enough it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters Noâ—e are so incapable of Conviction as those who presently determine what a thing must be without considering what it is Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before great Generals Which is just as reasonable as to suppose that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon it self for their own satisfaction But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present It seems they soon heard enough of it by the Noise and Clamor they made about it Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists for us to quarrel among our selves Would to God this advantage had never been given them And Woe be to them by whom these offences come And what must we do Must we stand still with open Arms and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us Must we suffer our selves to be run down with a Popular fury raised by Reviling Books and Pamphlets and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication lest the Papists should overhear us Which is as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny for fear the Enemy should take notice and make some advantage of it But which will be the greater advantage to him to see it spread and increase or care taken in time to suppress it If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active and busie than formerly if they had not both by publick Writings and secret Insinuations gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church and the Members of it so disingenuously as they have done there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon But when those things were notorious to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then or now to defend it is in effect to tell us they may say and do what they will against us at all seasons but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable Which under favor seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side for it is like setting us in the Pillory for them to throw dirt at us without allowing us any means to defend our Selves But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it But Wherein doth it lie Not in raking into old Sores or looking back to the proceedings of former times Not in exposing the particular faults of some Men and laying them to the charge of the whole Party Not in sharp and provoking reflections on Mens Persons All these I purposely and with care declined My design being not to exasperate any but to perswade and argue them into a better disposition to Union by laying open the common danger we are in and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists by another that indeed I do not bespeak for them Gibbets Whipping-posts and Dungeons nor directly any thing grievous to their flesh but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them in respect of their Everlasting State God forbid that I should Iudge any one among them as to their present sincerity or final condition to their own Master they must stand or fall but my business was to consider the nature and tendency of their Actions My Iudgment being that a causless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it and herein having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern Would they have had me represented that as no sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it or Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessen'd their sense of it No I had seen too much of this already and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men otherwise scrupulous and conscientious that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin as if there neither were nor could be any such thing unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation Which is so mean so jejune so narrow a Notion of Schism so much short of that Care of the Churches Peace which Châ—ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfy'd with it unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings And that I confess is a shrew'd temptation But so far as I can judge as far as the Obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism â—each and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace which is as far as is possible and as much as lies in us Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it is directly the Sin of Schism or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church And this is not to be determined by Mens fancies and present apprehensions which they call the Dictates of Conscience but upon plain and evident grounds manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion than joyn in the practice of such things We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome than they have against ours and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them if we had no better grounds to proceed upon than they
the Alteration of Established Laws which concern the Preservation of our Church and Religion one of the Weightiest things that can be taken into Consideration And although the Arguments are very plausible one way yet the Objections are very strong another The Union of Protestants the Ease of Scrupulous Consciences the providing for so many poor Families of Ejected Ministers are great Motives on our side But 1. The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters 2. The Vncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations 3. The Difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church considering the Vngovernableness of some Mens Tempers and Principles 4. The danger of breaking all in pieces by Toleration 5. The Exposing our selves to the Papists and others by Receding too far from the first Principles and Frame of our Reformation And 6. The Difficulty of keeping out Priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters are very weighty Considerations on the other side So that whatever Men talk of the easiness of taking away the present Impositions it is a sign they look no farther than their own case and do not consider the Strength and Union of a National Settlement and the necessity thereof to keep out Popery and How much easier it is to break things in pieces than to set them in order again for new Objections will still be raised against any Settlement and so the result may be nothing but Disorder and Confusion Of what moment these things may be thought to other persons I know not but they were great enough to me to make me think it very unseasonable to meddle with Establish'd Law 's but on the other hand I could not but think it seasonable to endeavor to remove such Scruples and Prejudices as hindered the People most from Communion with our Churches for as I said in the Epistle before the Sermon If the People be brought to Vnderstand and Practice their Duty as to Communion with our Churches other difficulties which obstruct our Union will more easily be removed This passage Mr A. tells me was the Sport and Entertainment of the Coffeâ—-Houses I confess I am a great Stranger to the Wisdom of those places but I see Mr. A. is able to give me an Account of the Sage Discourses upon Points of Divinity there But if those pleasant Gentlemen would have understood the difference between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity they might have apprehended the meaning of that passage For I am of Opinion if the People once thought themselves bound to do what they may lawfully do towards Communion with us many of the Ministers who seem now most most forward to defend the Separation would think of putting a fairer Construction upon many things than now they do And therefore I thought it fittest to handle the Case of the People who are either over-violent in these matters without ever considering them or have met with ill-instructors who have not faithfully let them know what the terms of Communion as to themselves were For the Scruple of the Surplice seems to be worn out Kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more Iudicious Non-conformists and the only Scruple as to them about the Sign of the Cross is not whether it be lawful for the Minister to use it but whether it be lawful for them to offer their Children to be Baptized where it is used and as Mr. Baxter resolves the case Baptism is Gods Ordinance and his priviledge and the Sin if it be one is the Ministers and not his Another Man 's sinful Mode will not justifie the neglect of our Duty else we might not joyn in any Prayer or Sacrament in which the Minister Modally sinneth that is with none As to the Use of the Liturgy Mr. Baxter saith He that Separateth from all Churches among us on the account of the Unlawfulness of our Liturgy doth Separate from them on a Reason Common to All or almost All Christian Churches upon Earth the thoughts of which he is not able to bear And although the New Impositions he saith makes their Ministerial Conformity harder than formerly yet the Peoples Conformity is the same if not easier by some Amendments of the Liturgy as when Separation was fully confuted by the Old Non-conformists And the most Learned and Worthy of them he saith Wrote more against Separation than the Conformists and the present Non-conformists have not more Wisdom Learning or Holiness than they But he saith they did not only urge the People against Separation but to come to the very beginning of the Publick Worship preferring it before their private Duties What ground was there now to make such a Hideous Out-Cry about a Sermon which perswaded Men to no more than the Old Pious and Peaceable Nonconformists would have done who talked more sharply against the Sin and Mischief of Separation than I have done as may be seen in the First Part of the following Treatise But as if they had been the Papists Instruments to execute the fury of their Wrath and Displeasure against me they Summon in the Power of their Party and resolve with their full might to fall upon me And as if it had not been enough to deal with me by open Force which is more Manly and Generous they made use of mean and base Arts by Scurrilous Rimes by Virulent and Malicious Libels sent to me without Names by Idle Stories and False Suggestions to rob me at once of my Reputation and the Tranquillity of my Mind But I thank God I despised such pittiful Artifices and such Vnmanly and Barbarous Usage which made no other Impression on my mind but to make me understand that other Men could use me as Bad or Worse than the Papists But this brought to my Mind a Passage of Arch-Bishop Whitgift concerning their Predecessors usage of Bishop Jewel after he had so stoutly defended this Church against the Papists But saith he it is their manner except you please their humor in all things though you otherwise deserve never so well all is nothing with them but they will Deprave you Rail on you Backbite you Invent Lies of you and spread False Rumors as though you were the Vilest Persons upon Earth I could hardly have believed so ill a Character of Men pretending to any kind of Religion had I not found so just a parallel abating only the due allowances that must be made as to my Case with respect to the far greater deserts of that incomparable Bishop But notwithstanding all their hard Censures of me I do assure them I am as firm a Protestant as ever I was and should be still as ready to Promote the Interest of the Protestant Religion yea and to do any Real Kindness to the Dissenters themselves that may be consistent with the National Settlement of our Church and the Honor of our Reformation After a while they thought fit to draw their Strength into open Field and the First who appeared against me was Dr. Owen who
this tast let the Reader Iudge what Ingenuity I am to expect from this Man The Last who appeared against my Sermon is called the Author of the Christian Temper I was glad to find an Adversary pretending to that having found so little of it in the Answers of Mr. B. and Mr. A. His business is To commit the Rector of Sutton with the Dean of St. Paul's which was enough to make the Common People imagine this was some busie Justice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle The whole Design of that Book doth not seem very agreeable to the Christian Temper which the Author pretends to For it is to pick up all the Passages he could meet with in a Book written twenty years since with great tenderness towards the Dissenters before the Law 's were Establish'd As though as Mr Cotton once answered in a like case there were no weighty Argument to be found but what might be gather'd from the weakness or unwariness of my Expressions And Have you not very well requited the Author of that Book for the tenderness and pitty he had for you and the concernment he then expressed to have brought you iâ— upon easier terms than were since required And Hath he now deserved this at your hands to have them all thrown in his face and to be thus upbraided with his former kindness Is this your Ingenuity your Gratitude your Christian Temper Are you afraid of having too many Friends that you thus use those whom you once took to be such Methinks herein you appear very Self-denying but I cannot take you to be any of the Wisest Men upon Earth When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and farther consideration those Divines of the Assembly who then opposed Separation should change their Opinions Will you not allow one single Person who happen'd to Write about these matters when he was very young in twenty years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his life to see reason to alter his Iudgment But after all this wherein is it that he hath thus contradicted himself Is it in the Point of Separation which is the present business No so far from it that in that very Book he speaks as fully concerning the Unlawfulness of Separation as in this Sermon Which will appear by these particulars in it 1. That it is unlawful to set up new Churches because they cannot conform to such practises which they suspect to be unlawful 2. Those are New Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church Rules different from that form they separate from 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undeterâ—in'd by the Law of God and in matters of meer order and decency and wholly as to the Form of Government every one notwithstanding what his private judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the determination of the lawful Governors of the Church Allow but these Three Conclusions and defend the present Separation if you can Why then do you make such a stir about other passages in that Book and take so little notice of these which are most pertinent and material Was it not possible for you to espy them when you ransacked every Corner of that Book to find out some thing which might seem to make to your purpose And yet the very first passage you quote is within two Leaves of these and Two passages more you soon after quote are within a Page of them and another in the very same Page and so many up and down so very near them that it is impossible you should not see and consider them Yes he hath at last found something very near them for he quotes the very Pages where they are And he saith he will do me no wrong for I do distinguish he confesses between non-Non-communion in unlawful or suspected Rites or Practises in a Church and entering into distinct Societies for Worship This is doing me some right however although he doth not fully set down my meaning But he urges another passage in the same place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But Will not this equally hold against our Church if it Excommunicates those who cannot conform I Answer 1. Our Church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites For it allows them to Communicate in other parts of Worship as appeared by all the Non-conformists of former times who constantly joyned in Prayers and other Acts of Worship although they scrupled some particular Ceremonies 2. The case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others Separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of this Church For that is all which can be inferred from the Canons For in the former case it is not a lesser Excommunication denounced as it is only in our case against Publick and scandalous Offenders which is no more than is allowed in all Churches and is generally supposed to lay no obligation till it be duly executed though it be latae sententiae ipso facto but in the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema so as to pronounce us uncapable of Salvation if we do not return to and continue in their Communion and this was it which that Author meant by being wholly cast out of Communion i. e. with the greatest and highest Church Censure 3. That Author could not possibly mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determines that in the case of our Church Men are bound in Conscience to submit to the Orders of it being only about matters of Decency and Order and such things which in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Law of God Although therefore he might allow a scrupulous forbearance of some Acts of Communion as to some suspected Rites yet upon the Principles there asserted he could never allow Mens proceedings to a Positive Separation from the Communion of our Church And so much shall serve to clear the Agreement between the Rector of Sutton and the Dean of St. Pauls But if any thing in the following Treatise be found different from the sense of that Book I do intreat them to allow me that which I heartily wish to them viz. that in Twenty years time we may arrive to such maturity of thoughts as to see reason to change our opinion of some things and I wish I had not Cause to add of some Persons too There is one thing more which this Author
takes notice of and the rest do not for else he offers little or nothing but what is in the others which is that when I say our differences are condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad he saith if it be so they may thank their Friends at home that have misrepresented them to the World Therefore to give satisfaction as to the judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now-living I have subjoyned to the following Treatise some late Letters of theirs to a Person of great Honor and Dignity in our Church to shew the Unlawfulness of Separation from the Communion of the Church of England Which were not written by such who had only a partial representation from others at a distance but two of them by those who have been among us and have been curious observers both of the Separate Meetings and of the Customs of our Churches and the Third by the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude And iâ— a Council could be called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the Unlawfulness of the Present Separation But before I conclude this Preface there is a great Objection yet to be removed which concerns the Time of Publishing this Treatise which some do seem to think to be very unseasonable when there is so much talk of Union among Protestants and there appears a more General Inclination to it than formerly And what say they can the laying open the Weakness of Dissenters tend to but to Provoke and Exasperate them and consequently to obstruct the Union so much desired In so doing I shall appear to resent more the Injuries done to my Self than the Mischief which may come to the Protestant Religion if this opportunity be not embraced for making an Union among Protestants This is the force of the Objection To which I Answer God forbid that I should either design or do any thing which tended to obstruct so Blessed a Work as a Firm and Lasting Vnion among Protestants would be But my Business is to shew the Vnreasonableness of those Principles and Practises which hinder Men from such an Vnion and lay a Foundation for Perpetual and Endless Separations For upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dissenting Brethren let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves yet others may make use of their Grounds and carry on the Differences as high as ever Which will render all Attempts of Vnion vain and leave the same Weapons ready to be taken up by others If the Vnion so much talked of be such as tends to the lessening and not to the increasing of our Differences if it be for strengthning and supporting the Protestant Religion and not rather for weaking and betraying it by laying it more open to the Assaults of our Enemies no Man shall be more ready to promote it than I no Man will rejoyce more in the Accomplishment of it But universal liberty is quite another thing from Union as much as looseing is from binding up and it is strange if that which the Papists not long since thought the best means to bring in Popery should now be looked on as the most effectual way to keep it out But suppose the Indulgence be at present strictly limited to Dissenting Protestants are we sure it shall always so continue Will not the same Reasons as to scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. extend farther when occasion serves and the Popish Religion get footing on the Dissenters grounds Where hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Let the State of the Northern Kingdoms as to this matter be Compared with the Number of Papists in the United Provinces And it will be found impossible to Root out Popery where Toleration is allowed 1 Because of the various ways of creeping in under several disguises which the Priests and Jesuits have and can never be prevented where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters and an unaccountable Church Power is allowed to separate Congregations 2 Because it will be thought great hardship when Mens heats are over for them only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest Fanaticks are allowed it 3 Because the diversity of Sects which will be kept up by this means will be always thought a plausible argument to draw Men to the Popish pretences of Unity 4 Because the allowed Sects will in probability grow more insolent upon a Legal Indulgence and bid defiance to the settled Constitution as we have seen already by the yet visible effects of the former Indulgence If Laws would alter the temper of Mens minds and make proud selfwilled froward and passionate Men become meek and humble gentle and peaceable then it were great pitty some Men had not had the Law on their side long ago But is this to be looked for are we to expect the Laws of Men should work more upon them than the Grace of God If such then continue peevish and quarelsome full of wrath and bitterness against all that are not of their minds and they meet with Men as froward and contentious as themselves will this look like the Union of Protestants And By-standers will be apt to say if this be all that you mean by Union of Protestants viz. a Liberty to Pray and Preach and to Write and Dispute one against another there seems to be much more of sense and reason in the Papal pretence to Unity and Infallibility But what then Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants who agree with us in all Doctrinal Articles of our Church and only scruple the use of a few Ceremonies and some late Impositions shall these differences still be continued when they may be so easily removed And so many useful Men be incouraged and taken into the Constitution Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies and some late Declarations and doubtful expressions beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences and the Peace and Stability of this Church As to this material Question I shall crave leave to deliver my opinion freely and impartially and that I. With respect to the Case of the People the Terms of whose Union with us is acknowledged by our Brethren to be so much easier than their own But these are of two sorts 1. Some allow the use of the Liturgy but say they cannot joyn in Communion with us because the participation of the Sacraments hath such Rites and Ceremonies annexed to it which they think unlawful and therefore till these be removed or left indifferent they dare not joyn with us in Baptism or the Lords Supper because in the one the Cross is used and in the other Kneeling is required As to these I answer 1 Upon the most diligent search I could make into these things I find no good ground for any scruple of Conscience as to the use of these Ceremonies and as little as any
as to the Sign of the Cross as it is used in our Church notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament and I know not what but of this at large in the following Treatise 2 I see no ground for the Peoples separation from other Acts of Communion on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act as the Cross in Baptism is not and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper as is in the Rubrick after the Communion 3 Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a freedom in joyning in full Communion with us which may be done either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross or if that may give offence to others by confining the use of it to the publick administration of Baptism or by leaving it indifferent as the Parents desire it As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper since some Posture is necessary and many devout People scruple any other and the Primitive Church did in antient times receive it in the Posture of Adoration there is no Reason to take this away even in Parochial Churches provided that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it with the least offence to others and rather standing than sitting because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other And as to Cathedral Churches there is no necessity of alteration But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism viz. the Use of God-fathers and God-mothers excluding the Parents Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples either by permitting the Parents to joyn with the Sponsors or by the Parents publickly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism or which seems most agreeable to Reason that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part representing the Child and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors These things being allowed I see no obstruction remaining as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us in all Acts of Divine Worship and Christian Communion as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful 2. But because there are many of those who are become zealous Protestants and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine although they cannot joyn with us in Worship because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies and the right constitution of our Churches their case deserves some consideration whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us To their Case I answer First That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us and in the end Popery as I have shewed already and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration Secondly If any present Favours be granted to such in consideration of our circumstances and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists for a general Toleration for if ever the Papists obtain it it must be under their Name if I say such favour be thought fit to be shewed them it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches by their declaring that our Churches are no true Churches that our Manner of Worship is unlawful and that our Church-Government is Antichristian and that on these accounts they separate from us and worship God by themselves But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted I humbly offer these things to consideration 1. That none be permitted to enjoy the priviledge of it who do not declare that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations 2. That all who enjoy it besides taking the Test against Popery do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith because the pretence of this Liberty is joyning with us in Points of Faith and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them 3. That all such as enjoy it must declare the particular Congregations they are of and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose that so this may be no pretence for idle loose and profane persons never going to any Church at all 4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties if they use any bitter or reproachful words either in Sermons or Writings against the established Constitution of our Churches because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences and the using this liberty will discover it is not Conscience but a turbulent factions humour which makes them separate from our Communion 5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches lest meer covetousness tempt Men to run among them and no persons so indulged be capable of any publick Office It not being reasonable that such should be trusted with Government who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful 6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which ought to be duly collected for the Vse of the Poor and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it 7. That the Bishops as Visitors appointed by Law have an exact Account given to them of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations with their Qualities and Places of Abode and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion by giving satisfaction to their scruples This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law 8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed
are built Sect. 19. The advantages of National Churches above Independent Congregations Sect. 20. Mr. B's Quaeries about National Churches answered The Notion of the Church of England explained Sect. 21. What necessity of one Constitutive Regent part of a National Church Sect. 22. What Consent is necessary to the Union of a National Church Sect. 23. Other Objections answered Sect. 24. Of the Peoples power of choosing their own Pastors Not founded in Scripture Sect. 25. The testimony of Antiquity concerning it fully inquired into The great disturbances of popular Elections the Ganons against them The Christian Princes interposing The ancient Rights of Nomination and Presentation The practice of foreign Protestant Churches No reason to take away the Rights of Patronage to put the choice into the peoples hands Objections answered Sect. 26. No unlawfulness in the Terms of our Communion Of substantial parts of Worship The things agreed on both sides Sect. 27. The way of finding the difference between their Ceremonies and parts of Divine Worship cleared Sect. 28. The difference of the Popish Doctrine from ours as to Ceremonies Sect. 29. The Sign of the Cross a Rule of Admission into our Church and no part of Divine Worship Sect. 30 No new Sacrament Mr. B's Objections answered Sect. 31. His great mistakes about the Papist's Doctrine concerning the Moral Casuality of Sacraments Sect. 32. Of the Customs observed in our Church though not strictly required Sect. 33. Of the Censures of the Church against Opposers of Ceremonies and the force of Excommunication ipso facto Sect. 34. Of the Plea of an erroneous Conscience in the case of Separation Sect. 35. Of scruples of Conscience still remaining Sect. 36. Of the use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism Sect. 37. No ground of Separation because more Ceremonies may be introduced Sect. 38. No Parity of Reason as to the Dissenters Pleas for separating from our Church and our Separation from the Church of Rome An Appendix containing several Letters of Eminent Protestant Divines abroad shewing the unreasonableness of the present Separation from the Church of England Letter of Monsieur le Moyn p. 395 Of Monsieur le Angle p. 412 Of Monsieur Claude p. 427 Errata in the Preface Page 14. marg r. Church History l. 9 p. 81. p. 17. l. 24. after find insert in p. 34. l. 18. for S. Paul r. the Apostle p. 36. l. 5. r. follows p. 53. l. 21. for our r. one In the Book p. 59. l. 5. for 1 r. 3 p. 71. l. 27. r. secession p. 72. l 8. r. as will l. 28. r. for which l. ult r. Cameron p. 101 l 12. dele for before say they p. 102. l. 11. r. their teachers p. 378. l. 2. dele whether AN Historical Account OF THE RISE and PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Separation PART I. Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controversie it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things 1. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation 2. That when Separation began it was most vehemently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked many things in our Church and wished for a farther Reformation And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then it will appear that the Principles owned by them do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us In the making out of these I shall give a full account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie about Separation from the Communion of our Church I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation By Separation we mean nothing else but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on by those who pretend to justifie these Practises and those are such as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful And not one of all those which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation For our Church stands on the same Grounds useth the same Ceremonies only fewer prescribes the same Liturgy only more corrected hath the same constitution and frame of Government the same defect of Discipline the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers and at least as effectual means of Edification as there were when the Reformation was first established And what advantage there is in our present circumstances as to the Number Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies and the Explication of the meaning of others as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation do all make it much more unreasonable now than it had been then Sect. II. It cannot be denied that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Reformation but they were such things as are the least scrupled now Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap and Tippet c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits but he submitted afterwards to the use of them Bucer and some others disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth which were Corrected in the Second So that upon the Review of the Liturgy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church at least as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separation For we read of none who refused the constant use of the Liturgy or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained as the Cross in Baptism and Kneeling at the Communion which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such a dreadful manner of the Mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insupportable Ceremonies Now we are told That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion By Whom At what Time In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion or alter'd the Old Ones No the same Author saith It is perpetuating the old Conditions and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom wherein it must certainly miscâ—rry Not to insist on his way of Expression in calling the Reformation An Old Worm-eaten Bottom which ill beâ—omes them that would now be held the most
Zealous Protestants I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us do as this Author saith Create a Necessity of Separation how then it came to pass that in all King Edward's dayes there was no such thing as Division in our Church about them And even Dr. Ames who searched as carefully as any into this matter can bring no other Instances of any differences then but those of Rogers and Hooper he adds indeed That Ridley and others agreed with Hooper Wherein What in opposing our Ceremonies when Hooper himself yielded in that which he at first scrupled No but there was a perfect reconciliation between them before they suffered And what then Is there any the least colour of Evidence that before that Reconciliation either Hooper or Rogers held Separate Assemblies from the Conformists or that Ridley ever receded from his stedfast adhering to the Orders of this Church This is then a very mean Artifice and disingenuous Insinuation For although Ridley in his Letter to Hooper out of his great Modesty and Humility seems to take the blame upon himself by attributing the greater Wisdom to Hooper in that difference yet he doth not Retract his Opinion but only declares the hearty love that he bore to him for his constancy in the Truth Neither do we find that ever Hooper repented of his Submâ—ssion to which he was so earnestly perswaded both by Peter Martyr and Martin Bucer and Peter Martyr in his Letter to Bucer condemns his frowardness and saith That his cause was by no means approved by the Wiser and Better sort of Men. But Ames saith Mr. Bradford might have been added who calleth Forked Caps and Tippets Antichristian Pelf and Baggage Suppose this were true it proves no more than that a good man had an unreasonable Scruple and such as is thought so by our Brethren themselves at this day But did he ever divide the Church on such an account as this Did he set up separate Congregations because a square Cap and a Tippet would not go down with him No he was a far better man than to do so But if the whole words had been set down the seeming force of these words had been taken away for they are these The cognizaâ—ce of the Lord standeth not in forked Caps Tippets shaven Crowns or such other Baggage and Artichristian pelf but in suffering for the Lords sake i.e. it is more a Mark of Gods Service to suffer Martyrdom as a Protestant than to be at ease as a Romish Priest for he puts them altogether Caps Tippets and shaven Crowns And what is this to the Impositions of our Church or Separation on the account of them Dr. Ames knew too much to pretend to any thing like that in those times For there was no such thing as Separation from our Church then heard of on the account of these dividing Impositions Some furious Anabaptists it may be or Secret Papists then had separate Meetings of which Ridley bids Enquiry to be made in his Articles of Visitation but no Protestants none that joyned in the Articles of our Faitâ— and Substantials of Religion with our Church as Dr. O. speaks did then apâ—â—ehend any 〈◊〉 of Separation from it not for 〈◊〉 of the Aâ—â—â— Sign of the Cross nor Kneeling at the Communion nor the Religious Observation of Holy-days nor the constant use of the Liturgy nor any one of all the particulars mentioned by Dr. O. which he saith makes our Communion unlawful and separation from it to be necessary How come these Terms of Communion to be so unlawful now which were then approved by such holy learned and excellent men as our first Reformers Were they not arrived to that measure of attainments or comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel that men in our Age are come to Is it credible that men of so great integrity such indefatigable industry such profound judgment as Cranmer and Ridley who were the Heads of the Reformation should discern no such sinfulness in these things which now every dissenting Artificer can cry out upon as unlawful Is it possible that men that sifted every thing with so much care themselves and made use of the best help from others and beggâ—d the Divine Assistance should so fatally miscarry in a matter of such might importance to the Souls of Men Could not Latimer or Bradford or such holy and mortified men as they discern so much as a Mote of unlawfulness in those times which others espy such Beams in now What makes this wonderful difference of eye-sight Were they under a cloudy and dark and Iewish Dispensation and all the clear Gospel Light of Division and Separation reserved for our times Did they want warmth and zeal for Religion who burnt at the Stake for it Doth God reveal his Will to the meek the humble the inquisitive the resolute Minds And would he conceal such weighty things from those who were so desirous to find the Truth and so resolved to adhere to it If Diocesan Episcopacy and the Constitution of our Church were such an unlawful thing as some now make it it is strange such men should have no suspition of it no not when they went to suffer For as H. Iacob the old Nonconformist saith in answer to Iohnson the Separatist Did not M. Cranmer hold himself for Arch-Bishop still and that he was by the Pope unjustly and unsufficiently deposed and by Queen Mary forcibly restrained from it Did he ever repent of holding that Office to his death Also did not Ridley stand upon his Right to the Bishoprick of London though ready to die Latimer though he renounced his Bishoprick yet he kept his Ministery and never repented him of it Philpoâ— never disliked his Archdeaconry yea when he refused bloody Bonner yet he appealed to his Ordinary the Bishop of Winchester The like mind is to be seen in Bishop Farrar And generally whosoever were Ministers then of the Prelats Ordination they never renounced it though they died Martyrs Johnson indeed quotes some passages of Bradford Hooper and Bale against the Hierarchy But he notoriously misapplies the words of Bradford which are The time was when the Pope was out of England but not all Popery which he would have understood of the times of Reformation under Edward VI. whereas he speaks them expresly of King Henry's days And it is not credible Hooper should think the Hierarchy unlawful who as it is generally believed had the Administration of two Bishopricks at once Bale's words were spoken in Henry VIII his time and could not be meant of a Protestant Hierarchy for he was after a Bishop himself But H. Iacob answers to them all That supposing these men disliked the Hierarchy it made the stronger against the Principles of Separation Seeing for all that they did not refuse to communicate and partake with them then as true Christians And
themselves from the Society of other Christians they not only Condemned them but also the whole State of the Church Reformed in King Edward's dayes which was well Reformed according to the word of God yea and many Good Men have shed their Blood for the same which your doings Condemn Have ye not saith he the Gospel truly Preached and the Sacraments Ministred accordingly and good order kept although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies and in indifferent things which lie in the Princes Power to Command for Order sake To which one of them Answered That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached and the Sacraments Administred without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it they never assembled together in Houses but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Non-conformity they be thought themselves what was best for them to do and calling to mind that there was a Congregation there in the dayes of Queen Mary which followed the Order of Geneva they took up that and this Book and Order saith he we hold Another Answered That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it and set them up before it so that no Man may Preach or Minister the Sacraments without them Things being come to this height and Separation beginnâ—ng to break out the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther till they had Consulted their Oracle at Geneva Beza being often solicited by them with doleful Complaints of their hard usage and the different Opinions among themselves what they were to do at last resolves to Answer but first he declares How unwilling he was to interpose in the Differences of another Church especially when but one Party was heard and he was afraid this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more rather than Cure this evil which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured but Precibus Patientiâ by Prayers and Patience After this General Advice Beza freely declares his own judgment as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers and the Peoples Separation he expresses his Mind in that manner that the Dissenters at this day would have published their Invectives against him one upon the back of another For 1. As to the Silenced Ministers he saith That if the Pressing Subscription continued he perswades them rather to live privately than to yield to it For they must either act against their Consciences or they must quit their Imployments for saith he the Third thing that may be supposed viz. That they should exercise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops we Tremble at the Thoughts of it for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them What! Is Beza for Silencing and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful and able Ministers and at such a time when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it when St. Antholins St. Peters St. Bartholomews at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was were like to be left destitute of such Men Would Beza even Beza at such a time as that be for Silencing so many Preachers i. e. for their sitting quiet when the Law had done it And would not he suffer them to Preach when they ought to have done it though against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries but that he was of the contrary it appears plainly by this That before he Perswades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe and that he expresses no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws 2 As to the case of the People his Advice was As long as the Doctrine was sound that they should diligently attend upon it and receive the Sacraments devoutly and to joyn Amendment of Life with their Prayers that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation So that nothing can be more express against Sâ—paration than what is here said by Beza for even as to the Ministers he saith Though he did not approve the Ceremonies yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves he doth not think them of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them or that the People should forsake the Ordinances rather than hear those who did Conform Than which words nothing can be plainer against Separation And it further appears by Beza ' s Resolution of a case concerning a Schism in the French Church then in London That he looked on it as a Sin for any one to Separate from a Church wherein Sound Doctrine and a Holy Life and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up And by Separation he saith he means Not meerly going from one Church to another but the Discontinuing Communion with the Publick Assemblies as though one were no Member of them Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissenting Brethren at that time seems to have put an effectual Stop to the Course of Separation which they were many of them then inclined to But he was not alone among the Foreign Divines who about that time expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used For Gualter a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talke of the Difference then about these things and he extremely blames the Morose humor of those who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely 1572. he tells him How much they had disswaded them from making such a stir in the Church about Matters of no moment and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church which they had sent Men on purpose to possess them with both at Geneva and other places Zanchy upon great Sollicitation wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies but withal he sent another to Bishop Iewel to perswade the Non-conformists if the Queen could not be moved not to leave their Churches on such accounts which for his part he did not understand how any could lawfully do as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments although they were forced to do something therein which did not please them as long as the things were of that kind which in themselves were neither good nor evil And the same Reason will much more hold against the Peoples Sâ—paration Sect. 7. But about this time the dissenting party much increasing and most of the old and peaceable Non-conformists
and the necessity of Christ ' s Flock and Disciples must necessarily if truly followed lead on to and inforce a Separation Notwithstanding all this Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches but then he saith There is no Church Communion in Hearing but only in giving the Seals Mr. Williams urgeth That there is Communion in Doctrine and Fellowship of the Gospel Upon which Mr. Cotton grants That though a Man may joyn in Hearing and Prayer before and after Sermon yet not as in a Church-state Yet after all he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches But if they remain true Churches it appears from the former Discourse they can never justifie Separation from them upon the Principles of either Party So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate as to some of their Principles then the old rigid Separatists yet they do not consider that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable The Dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration to avoid the imputation of Brownism deliver this as their Judgment concerning our Parochial Churches And for our own Congregations viz. of England we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World that all that Conscience of the Defilements we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein did never work in us any other thought much less opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the True Churches and Body of Christ and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery much less did it ever enter into our hearts to Iudge them Antichristian we saw and cannot but see that by the same reason the Churches abroad in Scotland Holland c. though more Reformed yet for their Mixture must be in like manner Iudged no Churches also which to imagine or conceive is and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts Yea we have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually overspread with Defilements or in the greatest danger thereof and when our selves had least yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren but then the difficulty returns with greater force How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles all the Dispute had been about the truth or falshood of them but their truth being supposed the necessity of Separation followed whereas now upon altering the State of the Controversie by the Independents though their Principles seem more Moderate yet their Practice is more Unreasonable It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day to justifie the Separation That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches and that therein they differ from the old Separatists It is true in that Opinion they do but in Separation they agree which is the more unjustifiable in them since they yield so much to our Churches And yet herein whatever they preâ—end they do not exceed their Independent Brethren whose Separation themselves Condemned But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren and thought it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism because 1. They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government Which they say is inconsistent with the Civil Peace as may be seen say they in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there 2. They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches as the Separatists did and think such a Confinement Unlawful 3. They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members as the Separatists did Whereby say they they confound the Visible and Invisible Church and make the same essential form of both 4. They renounce the Ordination received in our Church but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry is by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant with such a Man as their Pastor For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church after the New Model at Rotterdam Ward was chosen Pastor and Bridges Teacher but they both Renounced their Ordination in England and some say They ordained one another others That they had no other Ordination than what the Congregation gave them Sect. 13. And now new Congregations began to be set up in Holland upon these Principles but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former Simpson renouncing his Ordination was admitted a private member of the Church at Rotterdam but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members as to the exercise of Prophecying and so he and those who joyned with him complaining of the Mischief of Impositions were ready for a Separation if that restraint were not speedily removed Mr. Bridge yields to the thing but not as to the time viz. On the Lords Day after Sermon this gives no satisfaction for they must have their will in every thing or else they will never cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions And so Mr. Simpson and his Party set up a New Church of their own Which I. Goodwin doth not deny for Mr. Simpson saith he upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor might seek and make a departure from it But were these Churches quiet after this Separation made So far from it that the contentions and slanders were no less grievous saith Baylie than those of Amsterdam betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons followers But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness No but in stead of that they were so full of Bitterness Reproaches and hard Censures that Mr. Brâ—dge often declared If he had known at first what he met with afterwards he would never have come amongst them nor being amongst them have given them such scope and liberty as he had It seems at last he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions and the mischief of a Separating dividing humor But the People having the Power in their hands were resolved to shew that they held it not in vain for Mr. Ward had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregation by Preaching the same Sermons there which he had Preached before at Norwich this and some other frivolous things were thought Intolerable Impositions and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery This being a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren which occasion'd a
II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
capable to receive the Inhabitants For this I find insisted on by almost all my Answerers Some Parishes saith one cannot receive a tenth part some not half the People belonging to them few can receive all The Parochial Teacher saith another is overlaid with a numerous throng of People The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City saith a third And yet not one of these but assignes such reasons for the necessity of Separate Congregations as would equally hold if there were never a Church in London but what would hold all the Inhabitants together This is therefore but a color and pretence and no real Cause Any one would think by Mr. Baxter's insisting so very much on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations this were his opinion that such Congregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes where they are helps to the Parochial Churches And no Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government where upon pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification the People are not drawn into Separation But is it possible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them and the Laws Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster because it is a very large Parish Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at Boston because there were but three Churches there to receive all the numerous Inhabitants If such a number of Churches could be built as were suitable to the greatness and extent of Parishes we should be so far from opposing it that we should be very thankful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work but in the mean time Is this just and reasonable to draw away the People who come to our Churches under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come For upon consideration we shall find 1. That this is Mr. Baxter's own case For if we observe him although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands that cannot come into the Temples many of which never heard a Sermon of many years and to this purpose he put so many Quaere 's to me concerning the largeness of Parishes and the necessity of more Assistants thereby to insinuate That what he did was only to Preach to such as could not come to our Churches yet when he is pinch'd with the point of Separation then he declares That his hearers are the same with ours at least 10 or 20 for one and that he knows not many if any who use to hear him that Separate from us If this be true as no doubt Mr. B. believes it then what such mighty help or assistance is this to our great Parishes What color or pretence is there from the largeness of them that he should Preach to the very same persons who come to our Churches And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Parishes where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches Then how come they to be lawful where few or none of those many thousands ever come at all but they are filled with the very same Persons who come to our Parish Churches These two pretences then are inconsistent with each other and one of them cannot hold For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches and scarce to any else iâ— any as Mr. B. supposes then all the pretence from the largeâ—ess of our Parishes and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches is vain and impertinent and to Speak Softly not becoming Mr. Baxter's sincerity 2. That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case viz. That he Preached only to such as could not come to our Churches it would be no defence of the general practice of Dissenters who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes As if it were necessary might be proved by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City and in the adjacent Parishes Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not if not Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them if they be Why doth he pâ—etend the greatness of Parishes to justifie Separate Mâ—etings when if they were never so small they would be lawful however This therefore must be set aside as a meeâ— color and pretence which he thought plausible for himself and invidious to us though the bounds of our Parishes were neâ—ther of our own making nor is it in our power to alter them And we shall find that Mr. B. doth justifie them upon other grounds which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes or capacity of Churches I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some duties at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties or at all times These things must be more particulary explained for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Separation Which proceeds not so openly and plainly as the old Separation did but hath such artificial windings and turnings in it that a Man thinks they are very near our Church when they are at a great distance from it If we charge them with following the steps of the old Separatists we utterly deny it for say they For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches they disowned your Ministery and Hierarchy as Antichristian and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous but we do none of these things and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation To which I Answer 1. There are many still especially of the People who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions and the Defence of it and elsewhere Where he complains of their Violence and Censoriousness their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors and forcing others to forsake their own judgments to comply with their humors And he saith A sinful humoring of rash Professors is as great a Temptation to them as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World In another place he saith The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them but they declare they would be gone from them if they do use them And he doth not dissemble that they do comply with them in these remarkable words Should the Ministers in London that have suffer'd so long but use any part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms though without
saith The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches nor the same rigid terms of Communion exacted i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them they can Communicate with them i. e. if they break their own Rules they can joyn with them Is not this an admirable way of Communicating with our Churches But if our Churches hold to their Rule and observe the Orders prescribed then it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Communion required by it they will have no Communion with them And Mr. A. delivers this not only as his own Opinion but as the Sense of the Party That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their Iudgments about the Lawfulness of Ioyning with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship or in any exclusive to their joyning with other Assemblies where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed they would flatly deny it And he goes yet further when he saith That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members and from those Pastors under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them to joyn ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches This is owning a plain and downright Separation in as clear and distinct words as ever Iohnson or Ainsworth did For 1. He makes it to be their general sense That it is unlawful to communicate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly or to be Members of our Churches Which is the same thing which they said 2. He ownes the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours For he owns other Pastors other People and a new Relation between these by the choice of the one and the conduct of the other This is no mincing the matter as Mr. B. often doth but he speaks it boldly and with great assurance and ushers it in with I have confidence contrary to his I think no Man doubts of his Confidence that ever looked into his Book but in this matter he is so brisk that he saith He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall as though all who gave their Votes there had owned these Principles of Separation for which many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers II. All the difference then that seems to be left is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion As to which these things are to be observed 1. That it is practised by very few especially if Mr. A ' s. Poll be allowed 2. That it signifies little as to this matter if Men be fixed Members of other Churches For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence For Communion with a Church is joyning with a Church as a Member of that Church And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship which makes a Man a Member of a Church I suppose there are many occasionally present at Mr. A's or Mr. B's Meetings who renounce all Communion with them A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church and that frequently too to hear Sermons c. but Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome Most of our Gentlemen who have Travelled abroad have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship at Rome and Paris but they would think themselves hardly dealt with to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome And if they be urged with it they will plead still They were of the Protestant Communion and the Reason they will give is because they did not joyn with them in all parts of their Worship not in adoration of the Host or Worship of Images and therefore they remained still of the Protestant Communion although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Popish Service And Is it not the same case here If Men only afford an occasional Presence at some parts of our Worship How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church than the like presence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches in some parts of our Worship and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church because they kept their Priests and had Mass in private and declared That though they looked on our Service as tolerable yet they thought the Roman more eligible and so having Full Communion with that and being only occasionally present at our Service they thought themselves good Catholicks So if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eligible and a better way of Worship with which they constantly joyn and alwayes choose to do it their occasional Presence at our Assemblies doth not make them Members of our Churches but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations if they maintain full and constant Communion with them And none of the formed Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship for they say That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches a Submission to all the Rules and Orders among them The New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Communion that scruples Infant Baptism or refuses to be present at the Administration of it although he be never so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them For not only openly condemning and opposing Infant-Baptism but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof or purposely departing the Congregation at the Administration of that Ordinance is liable by their Laws to the Sentence of Banishment And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical Interests together that as none but Church-Members are Free-men among them so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership From all this it appears that this new Notion of Occasional Communion in some parts of Worship exclusively to others is disowned by all sorts of Churches and is a late fancy taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Separation Sect. 5. But we here meet with an excellent Reason for the lawfulness of this Occasional Communion with our Churches viz. because to hold Communion with one Church exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable
Churches Or as Mr. B. expresses it The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental Reasons sway the other way From whence we may take notice 1. That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer to them than the others are and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ierusalem where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him What Church he is Member of If he should Answer He could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none Would they take such a Man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church That they would all agree was no part of Catholick Christianity And I much doubt whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion that could not tell what Church he was Member of For as to the Church of England he declares That he holds only occasional Communion with that as he would do with any other tolerable Churches But Were they not Baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it if so then if they Communicate no otherwise with it than as a tolerable defective Church they must renounce their former Membership for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it And if they do renounce their Membership in this Church their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation We thank them that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable but we cannot see how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church so that this great favor of occasional Communion which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons and some very good occasions is not worth the speaking of among Friends and so far from looking like Communion that it hath hardly the face of a Civility 2. That if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen as they say then this occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life For that is sufficient to shew their true Catholick Principles and Mr. B. faith When no such accidental Reasons do sway they are to choose the least defective way of Worship or as Mr. A. speaks To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations If then a Man be bound out of love to his Soul to prefer the best way of Worship and he judges the way of the Separate Congregations to be such there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion For the same Reasons which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one and to forsake the other And why should a Man that is acquainted with purer Administrations give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disorderly and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel and not reprove her rather by a total forbearance of her Communion And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent and holding fast that which is good and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together perswade such a Man that it is not lawful to leave the best Communion meerly to shew what defective and tolerable Church he can communicate with Which is as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow or to leave wholsom Diet to feed on Mushroms and Trash 3. That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations and less defective wayes of Worship So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way Suppose some think our Churches tolerable and Mr. B's or Mr. A's Meetings were eligible but after a while when the first rellish 〈◊〉 they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉 or Quakers and then think their way more 〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable Are not these Men bound to forsake them for the same Reasons by which they were first moved to leave our Communion and joyn with them unless they be secure that the absolute perfection of their way of Worship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fancy any defect in it Mr. Baxter once very well said Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last it will admit of no consistency Parties will arise in the Separated Churches and Separate again from them till they are dissolved Why might not R. Williams of New-England mention'd by Mr. B. proceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence Why might he not go on still refining of Churches till at last he dissolved his Society and declared That every one should have liberty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience By which remarkable Instance we see that this Principle when pursued will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers To which Mr. B. Answers What harm will it do me or them if any hearers go from me as you say to Dr. O. None that I know For as Dr. O. saith Since your Practice is one and the same your Principles must be so also although you choose several wayes of expressing them But Did the whole force of my Argument lie there Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers upon the very same ground And Is this a good way of Answering to dissemble the main force of an Argument that something may seem to be said to it I suppose Mr. B's great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a
thing of such great importance and Separation so mischievous as he hath represented it that the Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces and to run into wayes of Separation Hath not Mr. Baxter represented and no Man better the Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride Conceitedness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion And after all this must they upon a conceit of Purer Administrations and Less Defective Wayes of Worship be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces and run from one Separate Congregation to another till they have run themselves out of breath and left the best parts of their Religion behind them How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People and the Pernicious consequences of complying with them and Must the Reins be laid in their Necks that they may run whither they please Because forsooth they know better what is good for their Souls than the King doth and they love their Souls better than the King doth and the King cannot bind them to hurt or Famish or endanger their Souls But Why must the King bear all the blame if Mens Souls be not provided for according to their own wishes Doth the King pretend to do any thing in this matter but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament And why did he not put it as it ought to have been that they know what makes better for their own Edification than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament and the Governors of this Church do and let them make what Law 's and Orders they will if the People even the rash and injudicious Professors as Mr. B. calls them do think other means of Edification better and other wayes of Worship less defective they are bound to break through all Laws and to run into Separation And How is it possible upon these terms to have any Peace or Order or any establish'd Church I do not remember that any of the old Separatists no not Barrow or Iohnson did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation as these are The Brownists declare in their Apology That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions which may and will fall out among Men even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof Where a Church is rightly constituted here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers than either Iohnson or Ainsworth The ground of Separation with them was the want of a right constituted Church if that were once supposed other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation In the Platform of the Discipline of New-England it is said That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please nor without just and weighty cause Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body Those just Reasons are 1. If a Man cannot continue without sin 2. In case of Persecution Not one word of better means of Edification For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion So in their Declaration at the Savoy they say That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship ought not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church whereunto they are joyned And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes 1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin and that in Three cases First Want of Ordinances Secondly Being deprived of due priviledges Thirdly Being compelled to any thing in practice not warranted by the Word 2. In case of Persecution 3. Vpon the account of conveniency of Habitation And in these Cases the Church or Officers are to be consulted and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church No allowance here made of forsaking a Church meerly for greater means of Edification And how just soever the reason were they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Officers and to tell them why they depart And Mr. Burroughs condemns it as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church Yet this is now the main support of the present Separation and meer necessity hath driven them to it for either they must own the Principles of the old Separatists which they are unwilling to do or find out others to serve their turn but they are such as no Man who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church can ever think fit to maintain since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and confusion as Mr. Burroughs truly observed But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches That for his part he hath seldom heard any but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London where he hath been but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Scholâ—rs or judicious Hearers than to such as need more Practicall Subjects and a more plain familiar easie method Is this the truth of the case indeed Then for all that I can see the King is excused from all blame in this matter unless it be a fault to provide too well for them And Is this a good ground for Separation that the Preaching is too good for the People Some Men may want Causes to defend but at this rate they can never want Arguments Yet methinks the same Men should not complain of starving and famishing Souls when the only fault is that the Meat is too good and too well dressed for them And on the other side hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preachers and that he really fears lest meer Non-Conformists have brought some into reputation as conscientious who by weak Preaching will lose the reputation of being Iudicious more than their silence lost it And again But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation To which he adds But the Grand Calamity is that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited and none so commonly give way to their Ignorant Zeal to Censure Backbite and Reproach others as those that know not what they talk of Let now any Reader judge whether upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself their having better means of Edification can be the ground of leaving our Churches to go to Separate Congregations unless injudiciousness and self-conceited confidence
downright with Lying and by consequence with Perjury and tells me of 30 tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity among which are Lying and Perjury and not only that but drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries by declaring That the Covenant doth not oblige But I do not question if Mr. B. pleased he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggravations of the Sin of Separation For never did any Man lay more load than he upon whatever he opposes without considering how it may fall upon himself at last and How easie it is to return such heaps of Aggravations And it was well said by one of Mr. B's Adversaries concerning him That be the Controversie what it will he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ a Heaven and Hell Which I have found too true by my experience in this case for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of but only by declaring against Separation he tells me That he is so far past doubt on the other side as that he thinks I overthrow all Religion and set up Man in Rebellion against God But the worst is that he would make me say which I never said or thought That all Publick Worship is sinful when forbidden and then on he runs with a mighty torrent Daniel may go to the Lions the Martyrs Fathers Counsels the Vniversal Church are all foolisher than the meanest of his Auditors I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism For he doth in effect charge me with them For it follows It 's strange that he can be sure God's Word is true and yet be so sure that Mens Laws are above it and may suspend it Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way I abhor and detest such Principles as set Mans Laws above Gods And when I gave him the State of the Controversie about Separation I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting Parties and our Church How then could he possibly infer from hence that I set Man's Laws above Gods The Question is not Whether all Publick Worship be sinful when forbidden but whether in a Nation professing true Religion some publick Worship may not be forbidden If not then an universal unlimited toleration of Turks Iews Papists Socinians Ranters c. must follow If some may be forbidden then another Question follows viz. Whether such Publick Worship as may have an evil in it antecedent to that Prohibition may not be forbidden viz. such as tends to Idolatry Sedition Schism c. and if this be allowed then it comes to this at last Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults and if they be Whether the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them And this is the utmost that matter can be driven to which I here mention to let the Reader understand what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more But the sting of these aggravations follows If the People think though they should mistake that all the Conformists are guilty of the like Can you wonder if they prefer less Guilty Pastors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last Our Conformity is a horrible scandalous sin with them and therefore they must choose better Pastors Is not this just the old Brownists Argument The Ministry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministery and therefore we must not communicate with them but choose more honest and faithful Guides But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not If it be not lawful then he condemns his own practice and takes away occasional communion if it be lawful How comes Separation to be lawful since that is never lawful but when it is necessary as it will be proved afterwards Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Ministers of the Church of England to be Vsurpers and from such they say they may lawfully separate Is it Separation saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are Vsurpers and have no true Power over them But Who are these Vsurpers among us since we have a legal establishment and we thought Law and Vsurpation contrary to each other But notwithstanding Law it is determin'd First All that come into the places of ejected Ministers are Vsurpers at least to as many of the People as do not consent to their coming in How prove you saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected London-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved and that the succeeders were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks When faithful Pastors saith he in his Plea written in the name of the Party and by consent as he saith of many of his Acquaintance are in possession if a lawful Magistrate cast them out and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fidelity I. The Princes Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church before or without the Peoples consent II. Nor will it alwayes bind the People to consent and to forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismaticks because they do it not The bottom of all this is they are Vsurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors and putting in of others And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Principles as these I leave others to Judge For upon these grounds when Salomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadok in his room any part of the People might have pleaded They never consented to Zadok 's coming in and therefore he was their High-â—riest still let Salomon do what he would he could not dissolve the relation between them without their own consent For the Question is not Whether Abiathar did not deserve to be put out but to whom it belonged to do it whether to the King or the People And whether any part of the People might still own that relation which he had before to them without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority Especially if the People had given their own consent and the thing had been done not only by Salomon but by the States of Israel as it was in our case They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government have very little insight into Affairs For it follows that a small part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and choose other Governors to themselves in opposition to those established by Law and why they should not do it upon an equal pretence in other cases
the Gospel Was not the same Authority the same charge as to both of them Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty and none at all to the other Is this possible to perswade impartial Men that for 18 years together you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws and yet never thought your self bound to do that which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach and not without leave from the Bishop and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too viz. the African but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments so that if one obligation were stricter than the other that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in for 18 years together and why he might not as well in the other is not easie to understand However Why all this while no Constant Communicant with any Church What no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of No Obligation upon a Christian to that equal to the necessity of Preaching These things must seem very strange to those who judge of Christian Obligations by the Scripture and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church What was this Communion intended for The antient Churches at this rate might easily be capacious enough for their Members if some never joyned with them in so long a time But he hath communicated occasionally with us Yes to shew what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with but not as a Member as himself declares and this occasional Communion makes him none For Mr. A. saith Their occasional Communion with us is but like any of our occasional Communion with them or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher or occasional going to a Popish Chappel which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice or ten or twenty times as long as they declare it is only occasional communion it makes them no Members of our Churches for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion Secondly They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered although they may be occasionally present in it Now if Men who think our constant communion unlawful Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations as Mr. A. speaks and to choose new Pastors this is gathering new Churches and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gather'd The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter Such saith he of the dissenting Ministers as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also If this be true as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles then we see plainly a Separation owned notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches For here is not only a lawfulness but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations for Preaching Hearing and other Religious Duties And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches Pastors People and joyning together for Religious Worship in a way separate from our Assemblies For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them yet they are so far from allowing constant communion that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship And what was there more then this which the old Separatists held For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation which Giffard Answered they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation and then declare that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors with whom they might joyn in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different from what must follow from the Principles of those who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties And if there be a necessity of Separation as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold that seem most moderate the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion will not excuse them from the guilt of the other For as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute and some held one way and some another And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us that he looks upon it but as drinking a single glass of Wine or of Water against his own inclination to a person out of Civility when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else It seems then this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls as the other is destructive to their health So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence Mr. A. brings several instances to prove that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful where constant is no duty as with other Parish Churches upon a Iourney at a Lecture c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church where he goes to hear a Lecture c. but the question is about the lawfulness of Separation where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful For a man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion and yet withdraws from it And it is a wonder to me none of my Friends my Adversaries I am loth to call them could discern this It is lawful saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French Dutch or Greek Church Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty Yes if he were obliged
yet the more heinous `that it is commonly father'd upon God Lastly that it is most unlike the Heavenly State and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil for he would not destroy it by dividing it against it self Remember now saith he that Schism and making Parties and Divisions in the Church is not so small a Sin as many take it for I conclude this with his Admonition to Bag shaw upon his lessening the Sin of Separation Alass dear Brother that after so many years Silencing and Affliction after Flames and Plagues and Dreadful Iudgments after Twenty years Practice of the Sin it self and when we are buried in the Ruines which it caused we should not yet know that our own Vncharitable Divisions Alienations and Separations are a Crying Sin Yea the Crying Sin as well as the Vncharitableness and Hurtfulness of others Alass Will God leave us also even us to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh Doth not Iudgment begin with us Is there not Crying Sin with us What have we done to Christ's Kingdom to this Kingdom to our Friends dead and alive to our selves and alass to our Enemies by our Divisions And Do we not feel it Do we not know it Is it to us even to us a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance Woe to us Into what Hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves Yea that we should continue and Passionately defend it When will God give us Repentance unto Life Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously and then consider Whether he can go on to Excuse and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM But it may be said That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively with enslaving our Iudgments and Consciences to others which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle and he saith This is a Medicine worse than the Poyson even as 't is much better to have a Rational Soul though subject to Mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong bit and bridle To make it plain that he makes little or nothing of the Sin of Separation we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer which was That if it be lawful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is agreed in our Case then a bare difference of Opinion as to some circumstances of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient Ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of Mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to farther Separation Where we see plainly the inconvenience urged is endless Separation Doth he set any kind of bounds to it No but only talkes of inconsiderable and petty inconveniencies and some little trouble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will â—his is the worst of it and he must grant that though Separation be endless there is no harm in it But he that could find out a medium between Circumstances of Worship and Substantials can find out none between endless Separation and the enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences for he supposes one of the two must of necessity be Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists For this is their Argument Either we must give up our Iudgments and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides or there will be endless Separation He grants the consequence and cries What then It is nothing but the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and this is much rather to be chosen than the other But any sound Protestant that understands the State of the Controversie between us and them as this Author apparently doth not will presently deny the Consequence because a prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together and leaping over Hedge and Ditch being kept within no bounds And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Principle of enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure and if he doth not suppose it his Discourse is frivolous and impertiâ—â—â—t For a due submission to the Rules of our established Church without any force on the Consciences of Men as to the Infallibility of Guides or necessity of the things themselves will put a sufficient stop to Separation which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions Sect. 28. 5. Lastly I Argue against this Separation from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men who it may be will little regard other inconveniences if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God Which I now undertake to prove upon these Suppositions 1. That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church For it is not possible to suppose that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men with plainer Precepts and stronger Arguments than this is The places are so many that it were endless to repeat them and therefore needless because this is agreed on all hands So that violation of the Vnity of the Church where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden But it happens here as it doth in the other case that as Murder is always a sin but there may be some circumstances which may make the taking away a Mans life not to be Murder so it may happen that though Schism be always a sin yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism but then they must be such Reasons as are not fetched from our Fancies no more than in the case of Murder but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law For he only that made the Law can except from it 2. The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church For although the former be a duty yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian which is to joyn together as Members of the same Body And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church it is said The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these 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 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
he hopes it will not be made a Rule that Communion may not be withheld so the sense must be although not be left out or withdrawn from any Church in any thing so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed But as long as he grants that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them Not but that I think there may be a separation without sin from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church but then I say the reason of such separation is some heinous Errour in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some tyranny over the Consciences of men which may not be such as to destroy true Baptism and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter 2. He answers That they do not say that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ hath instituted that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them it is the duty of them who doe so to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation To which I reply that This is either not to the business or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency For wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our Church was required of them But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches And then I intreat him to tell me what difference there is between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches Is not this the primary reason of Separation because Christ hath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church which we are bound to observe and which are not observed in Parochial Churches Indeed the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution but the primary ground is that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed Let us then 1. suppose that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation so qualified and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church and choose their Officers who are to Teach and Admonish and Administer Sacraments and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation And let us 2. suppose such a Church not yet gathered but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes 3. Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church 4. Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members neither the aëreal sign of the Cross nor kneeling at the Communion c. I desire then to know whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church according to Christ's Institution Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules and the Institution of Christ or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church which is the true Cause of their separation but such Reasons as are common to all Churches that are not formed just after their own model If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches those must be observed and separation made in order to it and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way But this was a necessary piece of art at this time to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party and to make them believe if they can be so forgetfull that they do not own separation from their Churches but onely from ours the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days that they must be forgetfull indeed who do not remember it Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments Hath Dr. O. yielded that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon they would give over separation Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration would they not have continued their Separation Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation when it is notoriously otherwise and they did separate and form their Churches upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches This is more artificial than ingenuous Sect. 2. As to the Second Dr. O. answers that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact and so necessary from the nature of the thing that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations that many wise men wholly unconcerned in our Controversies do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute And for this two Testimonies are alleged of Iustice Hobart and Father Paul but neither of them speaks to the point All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles and after to other Pastours Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin it signifies so very little to the purpose or rather quite overthrows his Hypothesis as appears by these two Arguments 1. Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles which he calls voluntary Congregations 2. Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease were no particular Congregations in one City but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks were such for he saith they first
the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter And here the main Controversie lies between us and the Congregational Churches Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter then it follows as much from the nature of the thing that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace And I cannot yet see by all that hath been said how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism how great and intolerable soever it be thought As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila and Nymphas and Philemon I say that this is to be understood not of a Church meeting in their Houses but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say most of our Divines are of that Opinion and therefore the Argument holds against them And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before what obligation of Conscience can be upon any when they may serve God in their Families in opposition to Laws to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them For 1. he grants that a Church may be in a Family although a Family as such be not a Church Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church for a Church he saith may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Family Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of church-Church-communion especially when the addition of four more may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church 2. All that he saith is that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families And what then the Question is not now whether they be lawfull but whether they be necessary for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law but where is that Command Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches as his great Rule in these cases But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families All that he saith further as to this matter is that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance which in this case amounts to separation But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land and much more before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them All men no doubt that ever broke Laws if this Plea would be admitted would transfer the blame upon those that made them And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull In my Sermon as it is printed I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter That to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted 1. He saith Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority and imposed in such a manner that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies and consequently affords a better plea for Separation But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning I will set down his own Cautions 1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop if he hath Curates under him This he calls Parochial Episcopacy 2. Nor whether these should have Archbishops over them as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office 3. Nor whether Partriarchs Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull as Officers of the King exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit 4. Nor if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them You will ask then where lies this horrible imposition and intolerable usurpation It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making which according to Mr. B. requires two things 1. Local and presential Communion as he calls it i.e. That it consists onely of so many as can well meet together for Church Society 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours which being taken away they are onely Curates and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church I shall undertake these three things 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new
Rights of Patronage are as just and legal Rights as men have to their Estates and consequently every Minister duly presented hath a legal Title to the Temple and Tithes as Mr. B. calls them But this doth not saith he make a Minister for their Souls and the Parlament cannot dispose of their Souls The meaning of all which is if the People be humorsome and factious they may run after whom they please and set up what Minister they please in opposition to Laws And so for instance suppose a Parish be divided in their Opinions about Religion as we know too many are at this day all these several parties viz. Anabaptists Quakers yea and Papists too as well as others will put in for an equal share in what concerns the care of their Souls and consequently may choose a several Pastour to themselves and leave the Incumbent the bare possession of the Temple and Tithes But if there be no other objection this may be thought sufficient that he was none of their choosing being imposed upon them by others who could not dispose of their Souls By which means this pretence of taking care for their Souls will be made use of to justifie the greatest disorder and confusion which can happen in a Church For let the Person be never so worthy in himself the People are still to have their liberty of choosing for themselves And who are these People Must all have equal Votes then according to Mr. B.'s opinion of our Churches the worst will be soonest chosen for why should we not think the worst People will choose their like as well as the worst Patrons and the worst Bishops But if the Profane must be excluded by what Law Is it because they have no right to the Ordinances But have they no right to their own Souls and to the care of them therefore they are equally concerned with others Yet let us suppose all these excluded as no competent Iudges shall all the rest be excluded too who are incompetent Iudges then I am afraid there will not be many left And whatever they pretend the People wherâ— they do choose do trust other mens Judgments as well as where the Patrons present and to prevent popular tumults such elections are generally brought by a kind of devolution to a few Persons who are entrusted to choose for the rest But if all the People were left to choose their own Pastours it is not to be imagined what parties and factions what mutual hatreds and perpetual animosities they would naturally fall into on such occasions Do we not daily see such things to be the fruits of popular elections where men are concerned for the strength and reputation of their Party What envying and strife what evil speaking and backbiting what tumults and disorders what unchristian behaviour in general of men to each other do commonly accompany such elections Which being the natural effects of mens passions stirred up by such occasions and there being so much experience of it in all Ages of the Christian Church where such things have been I am as certain that Christ never gave the People such an unalterable Right of choosing their own Ministers as I am that he designed to have the peace and unity of the Church preserved And of all Persons I do the most wonder at him who pretends to discover the Onely way of unity and concord among Christians that he should so much so frequently so earnestly insist upon this which if it be not the onely is one of the most effectual ways to perpetuate disorder and confusion in a broken and divided Church And so much for the Plea for Separation taken from the Peoples Rights to choose their own Ministers Sect. 26. Having thus dispatched all the Pleas for Separation which relate to the Constitution of our Church I come to those which concern the Terms of Communion with us whâ—â— are said to be unlawfull One of the chief Pleas alledged for Separation by Dr. O. and Mr. A. is that many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men which are not according to the mind of Christ. These are very general words but Dr. O. reckons up the particulars which setting aside those already considered are the use of the Aëreal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the Religious observation of Holy-days and the constant use of the Liturgy in all the publick Offices of the Church As to this last I shall say nothing it being lately so very well defended by a learned Divine of our Church To the other Mr. B. adds the use of Godfathers and Godmothers and now I am to examine what weight there is in these things to make men seriously think Communion with our Church unlawfull When I found our Church thus charged with prescribing unlawfull terms of Communion I expected a particular and distinct proof of such a charge because the main weight of the Cause depended upon it And this is the method we use in dealing with the Church of Rome We do not run upon general charges of unscriptural Impositions and things imposed on mens Consciences against the mind of Christ but we close with them upon the particulars of the charge as Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host and we offer to prove by plain Scripture that these are forbidden and therefore unlawfull But I find no such method taken or pursued by our Brethren onely we are told over and over that they judge they think they esteem them unlawfull and they cannot be satisfied about them but for particular arguments to prove them unlawfull I find none which makes the whole charge look very suspiciously For men do not use to remain in generals when they have any assurance of the Goodness of their Cause Yet to let the Reader see that I decline nothing that looks like argument in this matter I shall pick up every thing I can find which seems to prove these terms of our Communion to be unlawfull or to justify their Separation In the Epistle before my Sermon I had used this Argument against the present Separation that if it be lawfull to separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is acknowledged in our Case then a bare difference of opinion as to some circumstantials of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to further Separation This Argument others were willing to pass over but Mr. A. in his Preface undertakes to answer it in all the parts of it which being so material to our business I shall now distinctly consider and like an able Disputant he allows nothing at all in this Argument for
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
then can justifie this Separation but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship Hold saith he the consequence is not good for there are certain middle things between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances about which it will be lawful to divide though otherwise we agree in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship So that here a Separation is justified 1. on the account of such things which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship 2. Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship and consequently although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship For that he charged us with in the Antecedent and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence he must grant that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies although they be made no parts of worship at all For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship they can be none at all and yet he saith it is lawful to divide about them And which is more pleasant when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things he doth it by undertaking to shew that they are made substantial parts of Worship For thus he argues The Church of England hath exalted these things i. e. Ceremonies to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them and therefore they conclude them sinful If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful then they must be either substantial or circumstantial parts of Worship and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship which I have answered already But after all our arguings about these matters Mr. A. saith the Controversie stands still where it did these hundred years and more I utterly deny that for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years than they did in a hundred years before as appears by the foregoing discourse However they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters and so long they cannot joyn with us and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation which I shall consider both wayes 1. As it respects the Churches censures 2. As it respects the judgement of Conscience 1. As it respects the Churches censures This Mr. B. often insists upon The Canons saith he excommucate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it separation to be so excommunicated And who is the Schismatick here Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you And if men be wrongfully excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion To this I answer That the Excommunication denounced is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it The words of the Canon are not as Mr. B. quotes them If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy Ceremonies c. to be unlawful are excommunicate ipso facto but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England established by Law to be impious Anti-Christian or Superstitious let him be Excommunicate ipso facto Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon for to say if any man do but affirm c. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto but when the Canon saith if any shall affirm c it implies these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately Both which the word Affirm will bear For as S. Augustin very well saith every mans errour is born with until he either finds an accuser or he obstinately defends his opinion Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujusâ—ibet donec aut accusatorem inveniat aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition according to the Rule If he will not hear the Church let him be as an Heathen or a Publican Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular persons until the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it Besides such excommunications which are de jure latae sententiae are rather to be looked on as Comminations than as formal excommunications For Gerson putting the question what the effect of such excommunications is he answers that it is no more than this that there needs no new judicial process but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence Which he saith he learnt from his Master who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray And if it requires a new sentence then it doth not actually excommunicate But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath discoursed coursed at large to whom I refer the Reader As to the practice of Canon Law in England Lyndwood saith that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto And it is a Rule in our Church that Persons excommunicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months that others may have notice of them and until the sentence be thus declared I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication though it be said to be ipso facto For although the sentence seem peremptory yet ipso facto doth suppose a fact and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church of which there must be evident proof brought before the sentence can take hold of the Person And to make the sentence valid as to the person there must be due execution of it and the question in this case then is whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication be bound to execute this sentence upon himself which he must do if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point Although saith he we are excommunicated ipso facto yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us And so he hath fully answered his own objection But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating
the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience 2. If no error will excuse from sin why is the Question afterwards put by me What error will excuse I answer 1. it is an exercise of patience to be troubled with a cavilling adversary 2. Do not I say as plainly as words can express it that a wilful error doth not excuse from sin And the question afterwards put concerns the same thing and the Answer I give to it is if the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse but if it be wilful it doth not Is this mans conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute 3. He saith I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation What Sophisters arguments are these As though we did not commonly speak of the thing as it is and not as the Person apprehends it S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution although he did not think it so when he did it The Iews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles which was wilful murder and yet they were men in their wits The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing it self for I was not so foolish to put the case concerning men who thought themselves bound to commit a sin knowing it to be a sin 2. He much questions whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church it is sufficient to my purpose And did not the false Apostles do so and have not others followed their examples And thus after other trifling Cavils to the same purpose after his manner he yields all that I say and saith It is freely granted by all the world that wilful Error doth not excuse from sin And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common doctrine of all Casuists only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand Why so was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule And was it not very pertinent to this to shew how far an erroneous conscience may or may not excuse from sin But Mr. A. saith it should have been about the Power of Conscience concerning an established Rule of mans making and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make Is not this indeed to the purpose First to suppose an unlawful rule imposed and then to enquire what conscience is to do about it My business was to shew that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfie themselves with this that they followed their consciences because their consciences might err and if that Error happened to be wilful being contracted for want of due care what they did might not only be sinful in it self but imputed to them as sins Which all men who pretended any regard to conscience ought to have an eye to for why do they pretend conscience but to â—void sin And if under a wilful error of 〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins as the Ieâ—â— and S. Paul were then men ought not to satisfie theâ—selves barely with this pretence that they do as 〈…〉 direct them This was the plain 〈◊〉 of that â—art of my Sermon and I leave any 〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent But he saith 〈…〉 if they be such are wholl◠〈…〉 invincible Ignorance If 〈…〉 better for them I hope they have 〈…〉 in their own breasts for it than what appears in some of their late Books for neither a peevish angry scornful provoking way of writing about these matters nor a light scurrilous cavilling Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse are any great signs of such an impartial endeavour after satisfaction as Mr. A. boasts of I cannot tell how much they have read the Scriptures and studied this Controversie nor how earnestly they have pray'd for direction but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates which give me no great satisfaction in this matter But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge being very willing to hope and believe the best To return to the Author of the Letter The main force of what he saith lies in this that those 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 This is new doctrine and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church although there were some things they scrupled and could not conquer those scruples And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us and much more living under some of our Ministers I never heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately and it hath been considered already And it is a very hard case with a Church if People must fly into Separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church I would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others their Separation be lawful If it be it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent for this Principle overthrows them all I will instance particularly in the last as most favourable to such kind of Liberty And I need not suppose a case since such hath already happened several times in New England R. Williams is one remarkable Instance who scrupled many things in their Churches and therefore could joyn no longer with them and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them and the People who scrupled as well as he chose him for their Pastor What is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present separation But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause so far from it that R. Williams published grievous complaints to the world of the persecution he underwent for it Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton an eminent Minister of New England viz. of a Church that
separated from a Church on the account of their Preachers having human learning and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them their answer was That is your judgement and this is ours i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples and therefore must persist in separation or return to Paganism Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth withdraws from their Communion and sets up another Assembly in the Town and upon his obstinate continuance therein was solemnly excommunicated by them And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to time will discover I would only know whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod should proceed to Separation whether this Separation be justifiable or not This is certain that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles and say their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees and if they proceed those Churches may be broken in pieces by these principles of Separation As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countreys most of them were by new Scruples which the People could not conquer for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members and carried away many of them And so they had done in New England and dissolved those Churches before this time if this principle had been allowed there viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples they may proceed to Separation No they tell them they must preserve the Peace of their Churches and if they cannot be quiet among them the world is wide enough for them So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians This I only mention to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their Scruples And upon the same ground not only Anabaptists and Quakers but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations For I suppose this Gentleman will not deny but they may have Scruples too many Scruples and of long standing and among great numbers and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them And by that time all these have set up among us shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation have taken any care to put any stop to it or to let us know where we may fix and see an end of it what scruples are to be allowed and what not and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling and say they cannot conquer their Scruples Are there no Scruples among us but only against the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism and kneeling at the Lords Supper Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper saying they are not to be literally understood Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations and say we can have no true Churches because we renounce Communion with the Pope What is to be done with all these and many more scruplers who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers This I mention because this Gentleman seems to look on it as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. For having spoken of that he addes Nor is it in it self of less weight perhaps 't is of much greater that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children but others must appear and undertake for them which he repeats soon after And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters as any that have come after him in the Admonitions declared that this was a thing arbitrary and left to the discretion of the Church And in his first Answer he saith For the thing it self considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches they do not mislike of it So that on the same ground it seems all oâ—â—er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at as well as ours and yet not only this Gentleman but Mr. B. several times mentions this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us nay he calls this his greatest objection and yet he confesseth that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents our Baptism is valid and lawful Now where is it that our Church excludes such a representation Indeed by Canon 29 the Parents are not to be compelled to be present nor suffered to answer as Susceptors for their Children but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office In the Bohemian Churches there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them and so they may be said to represent the Parents If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉 against the consent of the Parents then none couâ—â— in reason suppose that there was any implicit compact between them But since they are of the Parents choosing what they do in that office is supposed to be with their full consent If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old at some certain seasons only and indispensable occasions required the Parents absence might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence and the intentention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance If men be negligent in doing their duty must the Church bear the blame and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion But there is something beyond this which lies at the bottom of this scruple viz. that the Child 's Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents and therefore if the Parents be excluded and only Sponsors admitted the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism For Mr. B.'s first Question is which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism any more than all
not being confederated themselves can convey a right to their Children About these and other such like Questions those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes and can neither give others nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them 2. The consequence of this is that they must baptize many with a doubting mind and must exclude many more than they can baptize For Mr. B. saith if he took a dogmatical faith it self or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit I would baptize none because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith and who not The like others are as ready to say of his serious voluntary not prevalently contradicted practical profession or at least that no man can baptize with a good Conscience till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace or are not actually confederated with them And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right how few Children will be left that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers as Mr. B. calls them and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches Communion As to kneeling at the Communion I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration which I have not answered in another place Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion viz. that upon the same Reason these are imposed the Church may impose some use of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer 1. That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him or else he shall not stay in his House at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father because he hath some scruples whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not not meerly on the account of its significancy but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature This he thinks so weighty a scruple that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition on his continuing in his house and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fathers House and drawing away as many of his servants from him as he can infuse this scruple into But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his disobedience For faith he to his Father Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence and to make this the condition of my staying in your House Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son and ask you blessing Morning and Evening and am very willing to sit at your Table and depend upon you for my subsistence Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat You say it is a token of respect I say for that reason I ought not to do it For how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect It is true you require no more now but I consider what you may do and for all that I know the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you for that is a token of respect in some Countries next you may require me to kiss your Toe for that is a token of respect used some where and who knows what you may come to at last and therefore I am resolved to stop at first and will rather leave your House than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns that may represent the Trade and Company they are of would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it to say What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last it is true the matter is small at present but I consider it is a Badge it is a moral significant ceremony a dangerous teeming thing no man knows what it may bring forth at last for how can I or any man living tell but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat Would such an unreasonable jealousie as this justifie such a mans refractoriness in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company than submitting to wear the Badge of it So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required 2. There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies than what it hath already done supposing that it might do it on the same ground Because the Church hath rather retrenchâ—d than increased Ceremonies as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required as a condition of Commmunion But besides our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies because the very number of them supposing them lawful is a burden of which S. Augustin complained in his time and others had much more cause since and therefore for that cause many were taken away And withall it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine which it must do if it increased our Cermonies so as to make a new argument against them from the number of them 3. There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us For 1. As to the Vse of Images our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry and that from such reasons as cannot extend to our Ceremonies viz. from the express Law of God and the general sense of the Primitive Church which allowed and practised
The Vnreasonableness of Separation OR An Impartial Account OF THE History Nature and Pleas OF THE Present Separation FROM THE Communion of the Church of ENGLAND To which Several late LETTERS are Annexed of Eminent Protestant Divines Abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the Way to Compose Them By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to HIS MAJESTY LONDON Printed by T. N. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul ' s Church-yard MDCLXXXI THE PREFACE IT is reported by Persons of unquestionable credit that after all the Service B. Jewel had done against the Papists upon his Preaching a Sermon at St. Paul's Cross in Defence of the Orders of this Church and of Obedience to them he was so Ungratefully and Spitefully used by the Dissenters of that Time that for his own Vindication he made a Solemn Protestation on his Death-bed That what he then said was neither to please some nor to displease others but to Promote Peace and Unity among Brethren I am far from the vanity of thinking any thing I have been able to do in the same Cause fit to be compared with the Excellent Labors of that Great Light and Ornament of this Church whose Memory is preserved to this day with due Veneration in all the Protestant Churches but the hard Usage I have met with upon the like occasion hath made such an Example more observable to me especially when I can make the same Protestation with the same sincerity as he did For however it hath been Maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that I was put upon that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise a fresh persecution against Dissenting Protestants I was so far from any thought tending that way that the only Motive I had to undertake it was my just Apprehension that the Destruction of the Church of England under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the most likely ways to bring it in And I have hitherto seen no cause and I believe I shall not to alter my opinion in this matter which was not rashly taken up but formed in my Mind from many years Observation of the Proceedings of that Restless Party I mean the Papists among us which hath always Aimed at the Ruine of this Church as one of the Most Probable Means if others failed to compass their Ends. As to their Secret and more Compendious ways of doing Mischief they lie too far out of our View till the Providence of God at the same time discovers and disappoints them but this was more open and visible and although it seemed the farther way about yet they promised themselves no small success by it Many Instruments and Engines they made use of in this design many ways and times they set about it and although they met with several disappointments yet they never gave it over but Would it not be very strange that when they can appear no longer in it others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry on the Work for them This seems to be a great Paradox to unthinking People who are carried away with meer Noise and Pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most Passion and with least Understanding against it whereas no persons do really give them greater advantages than these do For where they meet only with intemperate Railings and gross Misunderstandings of the State of the Controversies between them and us which commonly go together the more subtle Priests let such alone to spend their Rage and Fury and when the heat is over they will calmly endevour to let them see how grosly they have been deceived in some things and so will more easily make them believe they are as much deceived in all the rest And thus the East and West may meet at last and the most furious Antagonists may become some of the easiest Converts This I do really fear will be the case of many Thousands among us who now pass for most zealous Protestants if ever which God forbid that Religion should come to be Vppermost in England It is therefore of mighty consequence for preventing the Return of Popery that Men rightly understand what it is For when they are as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony as of real Idolatry and think they can Worship Images and Adore the Host on the same grounds that they may use the Sign of the Cross or Kneel at the Communion when they are brought to see their mistake in one case they will suspect themselves deceived in the other also For they who took that to be Popery which is not will be apt to think Popery it self not so bad as it was represented and so from want of right understanding the Differences between us may be easily carried from one Extreme to the other For when they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can Trace it so very near the Apostles times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves For it will be very hard to perswade any considering Men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally as it must do if Episcopal Government and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostacy Will it not seem strange to them that when some Human Polities have preserved their First Constitution so long without any considerable Alteration that the Government instituted by Christ and setled by his Apostles should so soon after be changed into another kind and that so easily so insensibly that all the Christian Churches believed they had still the very same Government which the Apostles left them Which is a matter so incredible that those who can believe such a part of Popery could prevail so soon in the Christian Church may be brought upon the like grounds to believe that many others did So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Churches Enemies bring upon the Cause of the Reformation And those who foregoe the Testimony of Antiquity as all the Opposers of the Church of England must do must unavoidably run into insuperable difficulties in dealing with the Papists which the Principles of our Church do lead us through For we can justly charge Popery as an unreasonable Innovation when we allow the undoubted Practices and Government of the Ancient Church for many Ages after Christ. But it is observed by Bishop Sanderson That those who reject the Usages of our Church as Popish and Antichristian when Assaulted by Papists will be apt to conclude Popery to be the old Religion which in the purest and Primitive Times was Professed in all Christian Churches throughout the World Whereas the sober English Protestant is able by the Grace of God with much
came into their City And What could this be for but to draw People from their Churches to make up Separate Congregations And ever since that time they have been hammering out Principles such as they are to justifie their own practices But the Presbyterians did not joyn with the Papists for a General Toleration I grant some of them did not although very powerful Charm's were at that time used to draw them in and not a few swallowed the Specious Bait although some had the Skill to disentangle themselves from the Hook which went along with it But that this honor doth not belong Vniversally to them I shall thus evidently prove In A. D. 1675 there was a Book Printed Entituled The Peaceable Design or an Account of the Non-conformists Meetings by some Ministers of London In it an Objection is thus put But What shall we say then to the Pâ—pists The Answer is The Papist in our Account is but one sort of Recusants and the Conscientious and Peaceable among them must be held in the same Predicament with those among our selves that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer What is this but joyning for a Toleration of Popery If this be not plain enough these words follow But as for the Common Papist who lives innocently in his way he is to us as other Separatists and so comes under like Toleration This notable Book with some few Additions and Alterations hath been since Printed and with great sincerity called An Answer to my Sermon And the Times being changed since the former Passage is thus alter'd The Papist is one whose Worship to us is Idolatry and we cannot therefore allow them the liberty of Publick Assembling themselves as others of the Separation Is it Idolatry and not to be tolerated in 1680 And was it Idolatry and to be tolerated in 1675 Or was it no Idolatry then but is become so now and intolerable Idolatry too The latter passage hath these Alterations in stead of He is to us as other Separatists and so comes under the like Toleration these are put in He is to us in regard of what he doth in private in the matter of his God as others who likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer Now we see Toleration struck out for the Papists but it was not only visible enough before but that very Book was Printed with a Design to present it to the Parliament which was the highest way of owning their Concurrence with the Papists for a general Toleration And the true reason of this alteration is that then was then and now is now And to shew yet farther what influence the Jesuitical Counsels have had upon their People as to the Course of Separation I shall produce the Testimony of a very considerable Person among them who understood those affairs as well as any Man viz Mr. Ph. Nye VVho not long before his Death foreseeing the Mischievous Consequence of those Extravagant Heats the People were running into VVrote a Discourse on purpose to prove it lawful to hear the Conforming Ministers and Answers all the Common Objections against it towards the Câ—nclusion he wonders how the differing Parties came to be so agreed in thinking it unlawful to hear us Preach but he saith He is perswaded it is one constant design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on foot by Jesuits among us Let us therefore be more aware of whatsoever tends that way Here we have a plain Confession of a Leading Man among the Dissenters That the Jesuits were very busie among them and that they and the Devil joyned together in setting them at the greatest distance possible from the Church of England and that those who would countermine the Devil and the Jesuits must avoid whatever tends to that height of Separation the People were run into And Mr. Baxter in those days viz. but a little before the Indulgence came out was so sensible of the Mischief of Separation that he saith Our Division gratifieth the Papists and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion and that more than most of your seem to believe or to regard VVhere he speaks to the Separating People And among other great inconveniencies of Separation which he mentions this is one That Popery will get by it so great advantage as may hazard us all and we may lose that which the several Parties do contend about Two ways especially Popery will grow out of our Divisions 1. By the odium and scorn of our disagreements inconsistency and multiplied Sects they will perswade People that we must come for Unity to them or else run Mad and crumble into dust and individuaals Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and I am perswaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were Written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the Multitude of Sects among our selves Yea some Professors of Religious strictness of great esteem for Godliness have turned Papists themselves when they were giddy and wearied with turnings and when they had run from Sect to Sect and found no consistency in any 2. Either the Papists by increasing the Divisions would make them be accounted Seditious Rebellious dangerous to the Publick Peace or else when so many Parties are constrained to beg and wait for liberty the Papists may not be shut out alone but have Toleration with the rest And saith he Shall they use our hands to do their Works and pull their Freedom out of the Fire We have already unspeakably served them both in this and in abating the Odium of the Gunpowder Plot and their other Treasons Insurrections and Spanish Invasion Thus freely did Mr. Baxter VVrite at that time and even after the Indulgence he hath these passages concerning the Separating and Dividing Humor of their People It shameth it grieveth us to see and hear from England and from New England this common cry We are endanger'd by Divisions principally because the Self-conceited part of the Religious People will not be ruled by their Pastors but must have their way and will needs be Rulers of the Church and them And soon after he saith to them You have made more Papists than ever you or we are like to recover Nothing is any whit considerable that a Papist hath to say till he cometh to your case and saith Doth not experience tell you that without Papal Unity and Force these People will never be ruled or united It is you that tempt them to use Fire and Faggot that will not be ruled nor kept in concord by the Wisest and holyest and most Self-denying Ministers upon Earth Are not these kind words for themselves considering what he gives to others And must you even you that should be our comfort become our shame and break our hearts and make Men Papists by your Temptation Wo to the World because of offences and wo to some by
Book which far better deserved the Title of a Plea for Disorder and Separation not without frequent sharp and bitter Reflections on the Constitution of our Church and the Conformity required by Law as though it had been designed on purpose to Represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and Orders established among us for there are no fewer than 30 Tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity set down in it And all this done without the lest Provocation given on our side when all our Discourses that touched them tended only to Union and the Desirableness of Accommodation If this had been the single Work of one Man his Passion and Infirmities might have been some tolerable excuse for the indiscretion of it but he Writes in the Name of a Whole Party of Men and delivers the Sense of all his Acquaintance and if those Principles be owned and allowed by them there can hardly be expected any such thing as a National Settlement but all Churches must be heaps of Sand which may lie together till a puff of Wind disperses them having no firmer Bond of Vnion than the present humor and good will of the People But of the Principles of that Book I have Discoursed at large as far as concerns the business of Separation in the Second and Third Parts of the following Treatise But as though this had not been enough to shew what Enemies to Peace Men may be under a Pretence of it not long after the same Author sets forth another Book with this Title The true and only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches As though he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth and were to set the Terms of Peace and War among all Christians but I wish he had shewed himself such a Pattern of Meekness Humility Patience and a Peaceable Disposition that we might not have so much Reason to Dispute his Credentials But this is likewise Fraught with such impracticable Notions and dividing Principles as though his whole design had been to prove That there is No True Way of Concord among Christians for if there be no other than what he allows all the Christian Churches this day in the World are in a mighty mistake When I looked into these Books and saw the Design of them I was mightily concerned and infinitely surprised that a Person of his Reputation for Piety of his Age and Experience in the World and such a Lover of Peace as he had always professed himself and one who tells the World so often of his Dying and of the Day of Judgment should think of leaving two such Firebrands behind him as both these Books will appear to any one who duely considers them which have been since followed by 4 or 5 more to the same purpose so that he seems resolved to leave his Life and Sting together in the Wounds of this Church And it made me extremely pity the case of this poor Church when even those who pretend to Plead for Peace and to bring Water to quench her Flames do but add more Fuel to them This gave the first occasion to those thoughts which I afterwards delivered in my Sermon for since by the means of such Books the zeal of so many People was turned off from the Papists against those of our Church I saw a plain necessity that either we must be run down by the Impetuous Violence of an Enraged but Vnprovoked Company of Men or we must venture our selves to try whether we could stem that Tide which we saw coming upon us And it falling to my Lot to Preach in the most publick Auditory of the City at a more than usual Appearance being the first Sunday in the Term I considered the Relation I stood in under our Honored Diocesan to the Clergy of the City and therefore thought my self more obliged to take notice of what concerned the Peace and Welfare of the Churches therein Upon these Considerations I thought fit to take that opportunity to lay open the due sense I had of the Unreasonableness and Mischief of the Present Separation Wherein I was so far from intending to reflect on Mr. B. as Preaching in the Neighborhood of my Parish that to my best remembrance I never once thought of it either in the making or Preaching of that Sermon And yet throughout his Answer he would insinuate That I had scarce any one in my eye but himself His Books indeed had made too great an Impression on my Mind for me easily to forget them But it was the great the Dangerous the Vnaccountable Separation which I knew to be in and about the City without regard to the Greatness or Smallness of Parishes to the Abilities or Piety of their Ministers or to the Peace and Order of the Church we live in which made me fix upon that Subject although I knew it to be so sore a place that the Parties most concerned could hardly endure to have it touched though with a Soft and Gentle hand However I considered the Duty which I owe to God and this Church above the esteem and good words of Peevish and Partial Men as I had before done in my dealing with the Papists and I resolved to give them no Iust Provocation by Reproachful Language or Personal Reflections but if Truth and Reason would Anger them I did not hold my self obliged to study to please them But against this whole Vndertaking there have been two common Objections First That it was Unseasonable Secondly That it was too Sharp and Severe To both these I shall Answer First As to the Unseasonableness of it What! Was it Unseasonable to perswade Protestants to Peace and Unity That surely is very seasonable at any time and much more then And I appeal to any one that Reads it whether this were not the chief and only Design of my Sermon And to say This was Unseasonable is just as if a Garrison were besieg'd by an Enemy and in great danger of being surprised and although they had frequent notice of it given them yet many of the Soldiers were resolved not to joyn in a common body under Command of their Officers but would run into Corners a few in a Company and do what they list and one should undertake to perswade them to return to their due obedience and to mind the Common Interest and some Grave by-standers should say It is true this is good Counsel at another time but at this present it is very Unseasonable When could it be more seasonable than when the sence of their danger is greatest upon them At another time it might have been less necessary but when the common danger is apparent to all Men of Sense or common ingenuity could not but take such advice most kindly at such a season But this advice was not given to themselves but to the Magistrates and Judges and that made it look like a design to stir them
treated me with that Civility and Decent Language that I cannot but Return him Thanks for it however I was far from being satisfied with his Reasoning as will appear in the Book it self The next was Mr. Baxter who appeared with so much Anger and unbecoming Passion that I truly pittied him and was so far from being transported by it that it was enough to cure an inclination to an indecent passion to see how ill it became a Man of his Age Profession and Reputation At first he sent me some Captious Questions for a Trial of Skill I Returned him Answer They were not to the business but if he intended to Answer my Sermon as I perceived by his Letter he was put upon it and I knew how hardly he could abstain from Writing however I desired him not to make too hasty a Reply But he who seldom takes the Advice of his Friends was I suppose the more provoked by this Good Counsel and seems to have Written his whole Book in one continued fit of Anger and by some Rules of Civility peculiar to himself he published my Private Letter without so much as letting me know that he intended it Whatever Injurious and Spiteful Reflections he hath made upon me through his Book I can more easily forgive him than he can forgive himself when he looks them over again with a better mind And therefore I pass over the Scurrility of his Preface wherein after he hath in 20 Particulars described the most Unskilful Proud Partial Obstinate Cruel Impertinent Adversaries he could think of places of Scripture or Similitudes for he then concludes But although all this be not the case of the Reverend Doctor What a malicious way of Reproaching is this To name so many very ill things and to leave it to the Reader to apply as much as he pleases and when he is charged with any one to say he meant not that for he added although all this be not the case of R. Dr. If this be the Justice the Charity and Ingenuity of Mr. B. and his Brethren who put him upon Writing they must give me leave to think there are some Non-conformist Ministers that are not the Wisest the Meekest nor the most Self-denying Men upon Earth He seems much concerned about my being likely to have the last Word which I am very willing to let him have hoping he may come to himself before he Dies and may live to Repent of the Injuries he hath done to his Brethren and the Mischiefs he hath done to the Church of God by so industriously exposing the Governors of it and laying the Foundation for Endless Separation as will appear in the following Discourse The Third who entred the Lists was one who seemed to Write more like a Well-disposed Gentleman than like a Divine he wishes very well to the Cause he undertakes he diâ—courses Gravely and Piously without Bitterness and Rancor or any sharp Reflections and sometimes with a great mixture of Kindness towards one for which and his Prayers for me I do heartily Thank him What I find Material to the business in his Book I have consider'd in its due place The Fourth comes forth with a more than ordinary briskness and seems to set up rather for a sort of Wit than a Grave Divine His Book resembled the Bird of Athens for it seems to be made up of Face and Feathers For setting aside his Bold Sayings his Impertinent Triflings his hunting up and down for any occasion of venting his little Stories and Similitudes there is very little of Substance left in him but what he hath borrowed from Dr. O. or Mr. B. Methinks such a light vain scurrilous Way of Writing doth not become such a Tenderness of Conscience as our Dissenting Brethren pretend to There is a sort of pleasantness of Wit which serves to entertain the Reader in the rough and deep Way of Controversies but certainly there is a difference between the Raillery and Good Humor of Gentlemen and the Iests of Porters and Watermen But this Author seems to be Ambitious of the honor of a Second Martin whose way he imitates and whose Wit he equals Yet this is not his greatest Fault for he deals with me as a Man that was by any means to be run down without regard to common Ingenuity For suppose I had mistaken the Sense of my Text which I am certain I did not yet I am not the only Person in the World that Talks Impertinently Suppose there had been a Fault in my Reasoning methinks the sense of Humane Frailty should make Men not grow Insolent upon such a Discovery and yet I do not know one thing which he hath made it in as will appear hereafter But Will nothing serve but to Represent me to the World as a kind of Atheistical Hypocrite i. e. as a secret underminer of the proof of a Deity under the pretence of proving it Yet this he doth more than once which was so remote from his Business that nothing but a Wretched Malicious Design of Exposing me could make him draw it in He gives a gentle Touch at it in his Preface to prepare the Readers Appetite but p. 70. he charges me with proceeding upon such Principles as plainly render it impossible by any certain Argument to prove the existence of a Deity Mr. B. had unhappily said and without the least ground that my Principles overthrow all Religion and Mr. A. vouches it and undertakes to prove it for him Mr. B. begins his Plea for Peace with a saying of St. Augustin he meant St. Hierom that no Man ought to be patient under the accusation of Heresy What should a Man then be under the accusation of being guilty of overthrowing all Religion and rendring it impossible by any certain Argument to prove that there is a God According to all Rules of Iustice a Charge of so high a nature ought not to be brought against any Man without such evidence as appears clear and convincing to him that brings it But I very much mistrust in this case that Mr. A. in his Conscience knew his Proofs to be weak and insufficient What then can we think of him that charges another with so high a Crime when he knows that he cannot prove it His first Proof he takes from my Popish Adversaries about the inconsistency of proving a Deity by such Infallible Arguments as must suppose the existence of what we prove as all infallibility from Divine Assistance must do But did I ever say there was no Certainty without Infallible Assistance And yet this whole matter about Certainty as to the Proof of a God and the Christian Religion I had so lately cleared in my last Answer to the Papists which he refers to in this very place that he could not but be convinced of the Impertinency of it His Main Argument he pretends to bring from a Principle of my own for his words are He lays down this for a Principle that the Foundation of all
that not only occasionally and at certain seasons but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it Sect. 3. Thus matters stood as to Communion with our Church in the days of Edward VI. but as soon as the Persecution began in Queen Mary's time great numbers were forced to betake themselves to foreign parts whereof some went to Zurick others to Basil others to Strasburg and others to Frankford Grindal in a Letter to B. Ridley saith they were nigh 100 Students and Ministers then in Exile These with the people in all other places Geneva excepted kept to the Orders established in our Church but at Frankford some began to be very busie in Reforming our Liturgy leaving out many things and adding others which occasioned the following Troubles of Frankford The true ground whereof is commonly much mis-represented Mr. Baxter saith The difference was between those which strove for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free-way of praying i.e. as he explains it from the present sense and habit of the Speaker but that this is a great mistake will appear from the account published of them A. D. 1575. by one that was a Friend to the Dissenting Party From which it appears That no sooner were the English arriv'd at Frankford but the Minister of the French Congregation there came to them and told them he had obtained from the Magistrates the freedom of a Church for those who came out of England but especially for the French they thanked him and the Magistrates for so much kindness but withal let them understand this would be little benefit to the English unless they might have the liberty of performing all the Offices of Religion in their own Tongue Upon an Address made to the Senate this request was granted them and they were to make use of the French Church at different times as the French and they could agree but with this express Proviso that they should not dissent from the French in Doctrine or Ceremonies lest they should thereby Minister occasion of offence But afterwards it seems the Magistrates did not require them to be strictly tied up to the French Ceremonies so they did mutually agree Upon this they perused the English Order and endeavour'd to bring it as near as they could to the French Model by leaving out the Responses the Letany Surplice and many other things and adding a larger Confession more suitable to the State and Time after which a Psalm was Sung then the Minister after a short Prayer for Divine Assistance according to Calvins Custom was to proceed to the Sermon which being ended then followed a General Prayer for all Estates particularly for England ending with the Lords Prayer and so repeating the Articles of the Creed and another Psalm Sung the People were dismissed with the Blessing By which we see here was not the least controversie whether a Liturgy or not but whether the Order of Service was not to be accommodated as much as might be to the French Model However when they sent to the English in other places to resort thither by reason of the great Conveniencies they enjoy'd and acquainted them with what they had done it gave great offence to them which they expressed in their Letters Those of Zurick sent them word They determined to use no other Order than that which was last established in England and in another Letter They desire to be assured from them that if they removed thither they should all joyn in the same Order of Service concerning Religion which was in England last set forth by King Edward To this the Congregation of Frankford returned Answer That they could not in all points warrant the Full Vse of the Book of Service which they impute to their present Circumstances in which they suppose such Alterations would be allowed but they intended not hereby to deface the worthy Lawes and Ordinances of King Edward These Learned Men of Strasburg understanding their resolutions send Grindall to them with a Letter subscribed by 16 wherein they intreat them To reduce the English Church there as much as possible to the Order lately set forth in England lest say they by much altering of the same they should seem to condemn the chief Authors thereof who as they now suffer so are they most ready to confirm that fact with the price of their Bloods and should also both give occasion to our Adversaries to accuse our Doctrine of Imperfection and us of Mutability and the Godly to Doubt of that Truth wherein before they were perswaded and to hinder their coming thither which before they had purposed And to obtain their desire they tell them They had sent Persons for that end to Negotiate this Affair with the Magistrates and in case they obtained their Request they promised to come and joyn with them and they did not question the English in other places would do the same Notwithstanding the weight of these Reasons and the desireableness of their Brethrens company in that time of Exile they persist in their former resolutions not to have the Entire English Liturgy for by this time Knox was come from Geneva being chosen Minister of the Congregation However they returned this Answer to Strasburg That they made as little Alteration as was possible for certain Ceremonies the Country would not bear and they did not dissent from those which lie at the Ransom of their Bloods for the Doctrine whereof they have made a most worthy Confession About this time some suggested that they should take the Order of Geneva as farthest from Superstition but Knox declined this till they had advised with the Learned Men at Strasburg Zurick Emden c. knowing that the Odium of it would be thrown upon him But finding their Zeal and Concernment for the English Liturgy he with Whittingham and some others drew up an Abstract of it and sent it to Calvin desiring his Judgment of it Who upon perusal of it being throughly heated in a Cause that so nearly concerned him writes a very sharp Letter directed to the Brethren at Frankford gently Rebuking them for their unseasonable Contentions about these matters but severely Reproving the English Divines who stood up for the English Liturgy when the Model of Geneva stood in Competition with it And yet after all his Censures of it he Confesses The things he thought most unfit were Tolerable but he blames them if they did not choose a better when they might choose but he gives not the least incouragement to Separation if it were continued and he declares for his own part how easie he was to yield in all indifferent things such as External Rites are And he was so far in his Judgment from being for Free Prayer or making the constant use of a Liturgy a Ground of Separation as Dr. O. doth that when he delivered his Opinion with the greatest Freedom to the then Protector about the best method of
a Mark of Distinction of a certain Order of Men the Colour of the Chimere being changed from Scarlet to Black These are now the Ceremonies about which all the Noise and Stir hath been made in our Church and any sober considering Man free from Passion and Prejudice would stand amazed at the Clamour and Disturbance which hath been made in this Church and is at this day about the intolerable Mischief of these Impositions Sect. 5. But the most Material Question they ever Ask is Why were these few retained by our Reformers which were then distastful to some Protestants and were like to prove the occasion of future Contentions I will here give a Just and True Account of the Reasons which induced our Reformers either to Retain or to Apoint these Ceremonies and then proceed 1. Out of a due Reverence to Antiquity They would hereby convince the Papists they did put a difference between the Gross and Intolerable Superstitions of Popery and the Innocent Rites and Practises which were observed in the Church before And What could more harden the Papists then to see Men put no difference betwen these It is an unspeakable Advantage which those do give to the Papists who are for Reforming 1600 years backward and when they are pinch'd with a Testimony of Antiquity presently cry out of the Mystery of Iniquity working in the Apostles times as though every thing which they disliked were a part of it Next to the taking up Arms for Religion which made Men look on it as a Faction and Design there was scarce any thing gave so great a check to the Progress of the Reformation in France especially among Learned and Moderate Men as the putting no difference between the Corruptions of Popery and the innocent Customs of the Ancient Church For the time was when many Great Men there were very inclinable to a Reformation but when they saw the Reformers oppose the undoubted Practises of Antiquity equally with the Modern Corruptions they cast them off as Men guilty of an unreasonable humor of Innovation as may be seen in Thuanus and Fran. Baldwins Ecclesiastical Commentaries and his Answers to Calvin and Beza But our Reformers although they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors that were sound in Religion and therefore they retained these few Ceremonies as Badges of the Respect they bore to the Ancient Church II. To manifest the Iustice and Equity of the Reformation by letting their Enemies see they did not Break Communion with them for meer indifferent things For some of the Popish Bishops of that time were subtle and learned Men as Gardiner Heath Tonstall c. and nothing would have rejoyced them more than to have seen our Reformers boggle at such Ceremonies as these and they would have made mighty advantage of it among the People Of which we have a clear instance in the case of Bishop Hoopers scrupling the Episcopal Vestments Peter Martyr tells him plainly That such needless scrupulosity would be a great hindrance to the Reformation For saith he since the People are with difficulty enough brought to things necessary if we once declare things indifferent to be unlawful they will have no patience to hear us any longer And withall hereby we condemn other Reformed Churches and those Ancient Churches which have hitherto to been in great esteem III. To shew their Consent with other Protestant Churches which did allow and practice the same or more Ceremonies as the Lutheran Churches generally did And even Calvin himself in his Epistle to Sadolet declared That he was for restoring the Face of the Antient Church and in his Book of the true way of Reformation he saith He would not contend about Ceremonies not only those which are for Decency but those that are Symbolical Oecolampadius looked on the Gesture at the Sacrament as indifferent Bucer thought the use of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism neither indecent nor unprofitable Since therefore so great a number of Protestant Churches used the same Ceremonies and the Chief Leaders of other Reformed Churches thought them not unlawful our first Reformers for this and the foregoing Reasons thought it fit to retain them as long as they were so few so easie both to be practised and understood Sect. 6. But the Impressions which had been made on some of our Divines abroad did not wear off at their Return home in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign For they reteined a secret dislike of many things in our Church but the Act of Vniformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoyned I do not find any Separation made then on the account of it no not by the Dissenting Brethren that withdrew from Frankford to Geneva Knox was forbidden to Preach here because of some Personal Reflections on the Queen but Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of Preferment and Imployment in the Church The Bishops at first shewed kindness to them on the account of their forward and zealous Preaching which at that time was very needful and therefore many of them were placed in London Where having gained the People by their zeal and diligence in Preaching they took occasion to let fall at first their dislike of the Ceremonies and a desire of farther Reformation of our Liturgy but finding that they had gained ground they never ceased till by inveighing against the Livery of Antichrist as they called the Vestments and Ceremonies they had inflamed the People to that degree that Gilby himself insinuates That if they had been let alone a little longer they would have shaken the Constitution of this Church This was the first occasion of pressing Vniformity with any rigor and therefore some examples were thought fit to be made for the warning of others But as kindness made them presumptuous so this severity made them clamorous and they sent bitter complaints to Geneva Beza after much importunity undertook to give an Answer to them which being of great consequence to our present business I shall here give a fuller account of it We are then to understand that about this time the Dissenting Party being Exasperated by the Silencing some of their most busie Preachers began to have Separate Meetings This Beza takes notice of in his Epistle to Grindal Bishop of London and it appears by an Examination taken before him 20th of Iune 1567. of certain persons who were accused not only for absenting themselves from their Parish Churches but for gathering together and making Assemblies using Prayers and Preachings and Ministring Sacraments among themselves and hiring a Hall in London under Pretence of a Wedding for that Purpose The Bishop of London first Rebuked them for their Lying Pretences and then told them That in this Severing
being dead or unfit for business the management of their affairs fell into the hands of younger and fiercer Men. Who thought their Predecessors too cold in these matters insomuch that honest Iohn Fox complained of the Factious and Turbulent Spirit which had then possessed that Party although himself a Moderate Non-conformist and he saith They despised him because he could not Rail against Bishops and Archbishops as they did but if he could be as mad as they they would be kinder to him And therefore he soberly adviseth the Governors of the Church to look well after this sort of Men for saith he if they prevail it is not to be imagin'd what Mischief and Disturbance they will bring whose Hypocrisie is more subtle and pernicious then that of the old Monks for under a Pretence of Greater Purity they will never give over till they have brought Men under a Iewish Slavery These New Men full of bitter zeal despised the old trifling Controversie about Garments and Ceremonies they complained That all was out of order in the Church and nothing but a New and Thorough Reformation would please them For in the Admonition presented to the Parliament 14 Eliz. they complain for want of a Right Ministry a right Government in the Church according to the Scriptures without which they say there could be no right Religion The Liturgy they deride as câ—lled and picked out of the Popish Dunghill the Portuise and Mass-Book the Government of the Church by Arch-Bishops and Bishops they call Devillish and Antichristian and Condemn the Vocation of the Clergy as Popish and Vnlawful and add That the Sacraments are mangled and profaned that Baptism is full of Childish and Superstitious Toys All which and many more expressions of a like Nature are extant in the First and Second Admonitions Which Bold and Groundless Assertions being so Openly Avowed to the World by the Leaders of the Dissenting Party gave the true Occasion to the following practise of Separation For when these things were not only published in the name of the Party being the Pleas for Peace at that time but stifly maintained with greater Heat than Learning It is easie to imagine what Impressions such things would make on the common sort of People who have still a good Inclination to find fault with their Governors especially in the Church and to Admire those that Oppose them And these they Courted most having their Opinions so suited to Vulgar capacities that they apprehended their Interest carried on together with that of Purity of Reformation Hence they pleaded then as others do at this day for the Peoples right to choose their Bishops and Pastors against the Vsurpations as they accounted them of Princes and Patrons hence they railed against the Pomp and Greatness of the Clergy which is always a Popular Theme and so would the exposing the inequality of Mens Estates be if Men durst undertake it with as great hopes of impunity Besides it was not a Little Pleasant to the People to think what a share they should come to in the New Seigniory as they called it or Presbytery to be erected in every Parish and what Authority they should Exercise over their Neighbours and over their Minister too by their double Votes By such Arts as these they complied with the Natural Humors of the People and so gained a mighty Interest amongst them as the Anabaptists in Germany and Switzerland at first did upon the like Grounds Which made Bullinger in an Epistle to Robert Bishop of Winchester parallel the Proceedings of this Party here with that of the Anabaptists with them in those Countries For saith he we had a sort of People here to whom nothing seemed pure enough in our Reformation from whence they brake out into Separation and had their Conventicles among us upon which followed Sects and Schisms which made great entertainment to our Common Enemies the Papists Just thus it happened here these hot Reformers designed no Separation at present which they knew would unavoidably bring confusion along with it for that was laying the Reins on the Peoples neâ—ks and they would run whither they pleased without any possibility of being well managed by them but since these Men would Refine upon the present Constitution of our Church there soon arose another sort of Men who thought it as fit to Refine upon them They acknowledged they had good Principles among them but they did not practise according to them If our Church were so bad as they said that there was neither right Ministery nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline What follows say they from hence but that we ought to separate from the Communion of so corrupt a Church and joyn together to make up new Churches for the pure administration of all Gospel Ordinances The Leaders of the Non-conformists finding this Party growing up under them were quickly apprehensive of the danger of them because the Consequence seemed so Natural from their own Principles and the People were so ready to believe that nothing but Worldly considerations of Interest and Safety kept them from practising according to them Which was a mighty prejudice against them in the Minds of the Separatists as appears by Robinsons Preface to his Book of Communion Sect. 8. II. The Separation being now begun the Non-conformists set themselves against it with the Greatest Vehemency Which is the second thing I am to make out As for those of the Separation saith Parker a Noted Non-conformist Who have Confuted them more than we or Who have Written more against them And in a Letter of his he expresseth the greatest Detestation of them Now it grieved me not a little at this time saith he that Satan should be so impudent as to fling the dung of that Sect into my Face which with all my Power I had so vehemently resisted during the whole course of my Ministery in England I think no other but that many of them love the Lord and fear his Name howbeit their Error being Enemy to that Breast of Charity wherewith Cyprian covered his Qui ab Ecclesiâ nunquam recessit as Augustin speaketh they cannot stand before his Tribunal but by the Intercession of our blessed Saviour Father forgive them for they know not what they do Think not these words are applyed to their Sect amiss for in effect What doth it less than even persecute the Lord Jesus in his Host which it revileth in his Ordinances which it dishonoreth and in his Servants last of all whose Graces it blasphemeth whose footsteps it slandereth and whose Persons it despiseth And Two Characters he gives of the Men of that way viz. That their Spirits were bitter above measure and their hearts puffed up with the Leaven of Pride How far these Characters still agree to the Defenders of the present Separation I leave others to Judge When Brown and Harrison openly declared for Separation T. C. himself undertook to Answer them in a Letter to
the Gospel against those of the Separation which was part of that Book afterwards Published by W. R. and called A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists The Ground-work whereof as Mr. Ainsworth calls it is thus laid 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. If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days those who live in ours ought well to consider it if they regard their Salvation And for this Assertion of theirs they bring Three Reasons 1. For that they Enjoy and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church i. e. Preaching of the Gospel and Administration of the Sacraments 2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith and Hold and Teach c. all Truths Fundamental So we put their Two Reasons into One because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith which say they is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church and admitted to the Priviledges thereof even by the Apostles themselves So the Church of Pergamus though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it yet because it kept the Faith of Christ was still called the Church of God 3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation the Position he laid down was this That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God Which he proved by this Argument Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation that is sufficient to make a Company of Men so gathered together to be a True Church But the whole Doctrine as it is Publickly Professed and Practised by Law in England is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation and our Publick Assemblies are therein gathered together Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assemblies True Churches And in the Defence of this Argument against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson that whole Disputation is spent And in latter times the Dispute between Ball and Can about the necessity of Separation runs into this Whether our Church be a True Church or not concerning which Ball thus delivers his Judgment True Doctrine in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith though mix't with Defects and Errors in other matters not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance though in the manner of Dispensation some things be not so well ordered as they might and ought are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church though somewhat crased in health and soundness by Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in Life and Manners The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on was Sect. 11. 2. That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it This will best appear by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery To which Giffard thus Answers The Church of England in the time of Popery was a Member of the Vniversal Church and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome nor took not her beginning of being a Church by Separating her self from that Romish Synagogue but having her Spirits revived and her Eyes opened by the Light of the Heavenly Word did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist with his Abominable Idolatry Heresies and False Worship and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith and True Service of God and so is a purer and more faithful Church than before Others add That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church and so to make a visible Church Neither were sufficient means wanting in our Case for the due Conviction of Mens Minds but then they add That the Question must not be Whether the Means used were the Right Means for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith but Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors whose Fellowship they had forsaken which they Iustifie by the Examples of Jehoshaphat and Josiah Asa and Hezekiah II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers using Popish Ceremonies c. To this they Answer 1. That it is evident by the Word That the Church hath used and might lawfully use in God's Worship and Prayer a stinted Form of Words and that not only upon Ordinary but Extraordinary Occasions which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit Nay they say They are so far from thinking them unlawful that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church they are many times more fit than those which are called Conceived Prayers 2. If Formes thus devised by Men be Lawful and Profitable What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church to Command that such Foâ—ms be used or for us that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them to use them unless they will say That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word Receive the Sacraments Believe the Trinity and all other Articles of Faith because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do Whereas indeed we ought the rather to do good things that are agreeable unto the Word when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate 3. It is true the Non-conformists say The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book but it followeth not thence that either it is or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil we cannot more credit the Man of Sin than to say That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichristian for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ to read the Scriptures to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book and yet be free from all fault and tincture from all shew and apperance of Evil though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass that both cannot possibly stand together Yea so many points saith
Bâ—ll are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery that it is not possible Popery should stand if they take place And saith he it is more proper to say the Mass was added to our Common Prayer than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World 4. As to the Fasts and Feasts and Ceremonies retained they Answer That what was Antichristian in them was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome which being taken away by the Reformation the things themselves are not Antichristian As namely saith Giffard the Remission of Sins and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross and such like things which the Papacy is full of but rejected by us III. That our Ministery was Antichristian To this they Answer 1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture not by his unlawful outward Calling or Office that he should exercise in the Church but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp to give Laws to Mens Consciences and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God Which two Marks of Antichrist as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised were faulty and unwarrantable by the Word yet you in your own Conscience know that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience neither is any thing among us urged to be done upon pain of Damnation but only the Word and Law of God 2. That the Office which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office which the Law alloweth is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently so by our Laws he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do and forbidden to Teach any thing as required of necessity to Salvation but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture yea it Commandeth him with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines that are contrary to Gods VVord Doth the VVord Authorise him to Administer the Sacraments So doth our Law Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach but also oversee and look to the Peoples Conversation Exhorting Admonishing Reproving Comforting them as well privately as publickly So doth our Law Lastly Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ our Law doth also command the same So that although many to whom the execution of these things appertain do grievously fail in the practice thereof yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister is the same in substance with that which the VVord layeth upon him Tell us not then That the same Name is given to our Office as to the Popish Sacrificers Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists And Shall the Holy Office and Calling which is so agreeable to the VVord be misliked because it is called a Priesthood considering that though it agree in Name yet it differeth in Nature and Suâ—stance as much from the Romish Priesthood as Light doth from Darkness IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church To which they Answer 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ which concern the Discipline of his Church and the outward calling of his Ministers is no such sin as can make either the Ministers or Governors of our Church Antichrist or our Church an Antichristian and False Church And Mr. H. adds That no one place of Scripture can be found wherein he is called an Antichrist or Antichristian who holding the Truth of Doctrine and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental as we do doth swerve either in Iudgment or Practice from that Rule which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture whose Doctrine is sound If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation through no other door than Christ How dare you that say you are Christ's refuse to be guided by them If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock How can you deny them to be True Churches 2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord and Administration of Sacraments as well as the Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor which say they by Law ought to be in all our Assemblies and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ which is most substantial do want the other and so exercise it not rightly that is to say not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed And farther they add That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table all such as are Vncatâ—chised and out of Charity or any otherwise publick offenders as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion and in that which is after Confirmation 3. That although it were granted That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign The Church of Corinth was a True Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they Condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline which we want be to the Beauty and Well-being or preservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a True Church may be without them
and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities and to some purposes than judicious and well studied Sermons This Argument must therefore be quitted and they who will defend the present Separation must return to the old Principles of the Separatists if they will justifie their own practices And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do for discerning that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self he adds more weight to it and that comes home to the business viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for Separation and the very same which Barrow and Greenwood and Iohnson and Smith and Can used Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry but we are mistaken if we think they now manage it after the same manner We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation but less fit to justifie it the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Principles of our new Separatists as to the Ministry of our Church and to discover how little they differ from the old Separatists when this matter is throughly enquired into as to the Argument for Separation I. In General they declare That they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve How oft have I told you saith Mr. B. that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor And one or other of these he thinks most if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under You will say then Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist and thinks it not lawful to joyn with any of our Parochial Congregations but this is contradicted by his own Practice There lies therefore a farther subtilty in this matter for he declares in the same place he can joyn with them notwithstanding But how as true Churches though he saith they are not No but as Chappels and Oratories although they be not Churches as wanting an essential part This will bring the matter to a very good pass the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chappels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists This I confess is a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists and Non-conformists for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation if our Churches were not true Churches and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry Now saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches because they want an essential part viz. a true Ministry yet he can joyn with them occasionally as Chappels or Oratories From whence it appears that he accounts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such but only looks on them as Publick places of Prayer to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister or looking on the Congregation as a Church For where he speaks more fully he declares That he looks on none as true Churches but such as have the Power of the Keys within themselves and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power and any Parochial Church that hath such a one and ownes it self to be independent he allows to be a true Church and none else So that unless our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power in opposition to the present Constitution of our Church as he apprehends he at once discards them all from being true Churches but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches that which I only insist on now is That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches or as he calls it of the Political Organized Form as wanting an essential part viz. a true Pastor From hence it necessarily follows either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all or it must be a Separate Church or if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did by setting up new Churches in opposition to ours It is no sufficient Answer in this case to say That Mr. B. doth it not for we are only to shew what he is obliged to do by vertue of his own Principles which tend to as much Separation as was practised in former times and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B. Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Parochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many that they scarce allow any from whom they may not lawfully Separate 1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy or incompetent they allow them liberty to withdraw and to Separate from them This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others First They 〈◊〉 it in the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legaâ—â—stablishments to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and â—etronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People as the old Separatists did God saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scripture hath given the People that consenting Power antecedent to the Princes determination which none can take from them Mr. A. saith Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places yet if the People have not owned them they are at liberty to choose whom they please How many hundred Congregations saith Mr. B. have Incumbents whom the People never consented to but take them for their hinderers and burden So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation Secondly The People are made Iudges of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers This follows from the former In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom or only the tenth part it is no Schism saith he but a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent and it is no Schism but a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiors to perform their Office to such people that desire it This is plain dealing But suppose the Magistrate should cast out
some and put in others In that case he saith If they be Men of uniried and suspected parts of fidelity of which the People are to be Judges the Princes imposition doth not make such true Pastors of the Church before or without the People consent nor doth it always bind the People to consent and to forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismaticks because they do it not Thirdly They give particular directions to the People what sort of Ministers they should own and what not Mr. B. bids the People not think that he is perswading them to make no difference but after he hath set aside the utterly insufficient and the heretical of which the People are admirable Judges he lays down this general Rule Any one whose Ministry is such as tendeth to destruction more than to edification and to do more harm than good is not to be owned And if not to be owned so then he is to be separated from and although he adviseth the People to lay aside partiality and passion yet whether they will or not they are left sole Iudges in this matter And that we may not think all this to be only a Romantick Scheme or Fiction he tells us elsewhere That they are not able to confute the People in too many places who tell them that their publick Priests are so defective in their necessary qualifications for their Office as that they hold it unlawful to own such for true Ministers and to encourage them by their presence or commit the care of their Souls to such i.e. in plain terms they are encouraged to Separation on this account which is directly contrary to the Principles of the old Non-conformists as appears at large by Mr. Ball. if saith he Can's meaning be that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worship of God with Ministers not fitly qualified disorderly called or carelesly executing their Office and Function then it is directly contrary to the word of Truth sound Reason and consent of all the Learned With much more to that purpose and even Mr. B. himself when he takes upon him as a Casuist to determine these things doth then declare his Mind 1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow People to Separate from the Worship of God 2. Nor all Ministerial faults but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intolerable But now if Mr. B. may be believed the People need not be told how great a number of Cases there are among us where the Ministers are uncapable of the Ministerial Office and therefore it is no sin in them to judge him no Minister and consequently to Separate from him Hath not Mr. B. fully set forth the Pride Ignorance Censoriousness Headiness Rashness of raw and injudicious Zealots and after all this Is it fit or reasonable that the opinion of such persons be taken concerning the qualifications of their Ministers Hath not Mr. B. complained with more than ordinary resentment that they are ready to scorn and vilifie the gravest wisest Pastors And Must such Mens Judgments be taken concerning the Abilities and Competency of their Ministers Either Mr. B. hath extremely wronged them in the Characters he hath given of such People or he hath taken away all the reputation of their Judgment in such cases When they scorn and contemn the greavest wisest Pastors are they fit to Judge of Ministerial Aâ—ilities But there are graver and wiser among the People Suppose that But doth not Mr. B. say That the rawest and rashest Professors are commonly the most violent and censorious these are the bold and forward men that will Judge in spite of the rest these are the men that need not be told what numbers of uncapable Ministers there are among us And it doth not become Mr. B's Gravity or Wisdom to hearken to all the censures and malicious reports of such ignorant and heady zealots as he calls them about the unworthiness or incapacity of their Ministers Are they only the grave and wise Pastors among themselves which are scorned by such men It is possible that those may be grave and wise among us too whom they censure for incompetent men Or must the same People which are raw and injudicious ignorant and censorious proud and self-conceited when they make their Judgment of them be of a sudden turned into grave and wise men when they pass their Judgment upon the Abilities and Fitness of our Preachers This doth not look like fair and equal dealing I pray let our Ministers have a fair hearing and let the matter be well examined before the People be thus encouraged to Separate from their Ministers for their disabilities or unworthiness But suppose there be too great a number of young raw injudicious Preachers as Mr. B. saith no Man can deny that knoweth England and hath any modesty Is there no way but to your Tents O Israel Will nothing but Separation serve your Turn Is this the way to mend the matter and to make them grave and wise Doth not Mr. B. confess That they have too many such among themselves Must they Separate from them too What endless confusions do such Principles tend to But the bottom of all is this Separation must be justified one way or other and such Principles found out which may seem to do it Yet after all What is this to the present case of Separation in this City for here the Charge was laid and to this the Answer must be given or it is to no purpose Is it any reason that near half of some Parishes in London should Separate from their grave and wise Pastors such as I know some to be where this case is because in Cornwall or Yorkshire or Northumberland there are many raw and injudicious besides scandalous Priests as Mr. B. speaks We urge you particularly with the London Separation you tell us what the People say of the Insufficiency and Vnworthiness of the Clergy in other parts of England suppose it true What is all this to the business If you persist in this way we can name the Parishes to you in London where the Ministers are Men of unexceptionable Learning and Piety where the Churches are large enough to receive the People that Separate as well as those that come and yet they forsake the Churches Communion and adhere to the Separate Congregations Tell us plainly in this case Is this Separation lawful or not If it be lawful to what purpose do you make use of so many shifts and evasions as to great Prishes and insufficient and scandalous Priests in other parts of the Nation Answer to the case proposed and to the place where the Charge was laid and think not to escape by such apparent evasions and impertinencies as these If you think such a Separation unlawful then Why do you pretend to confute my Sermon which was designed purposely against it Sect. 9. But while you plead for this liberty of the Peoples
Commonâ—ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments nor to Separate from others as meaner and lower Christians because they are not come up to that perfection which you have attained to And so either way it contains an excellent Rule and of admirable use to the Christian Church not only at that time but in all Ages of the World viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things should go as far as they can towards preserving Peace and Communion among Christians and not peevishly separate and divide the Church because they cannot in all things think as others do nor others on the account of greater sanctity and perfection despise the inferior sort of Christians and forsake their Communion but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace and the Vnity of the Church Thirdly How far this Rule hath an influence on our case 1. It follows from hence that as far as Communion is lawful it is a duty since as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule And so much Dr. O. doth not deny when he saith Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion or in the Principles of Faith and Obedience should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ Then as far as they agree they are bound to joyn together whether it be as to Opinion or Communion Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion as far as that is judged to be lawful 2. That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others though of lower attainments and to keep within the same Rule which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judged necessary to hold the Members of a Christian Society together But saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it This is the Apostles Rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down quietly and wait for farther instruction and not to break the Peace of the Church upon present dissatisfaction nor to gather new Churches out of others upon supposition of higher attainments If the Rule reach our Case saith he again it must be such as requires things to be observed as were never divinely appointed as National Churches Ceremonies and Modes of Worship And so this Rule doth in order to Peace require the observation of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority provided they be not unlawful in themselves nor repugnant to the World of God But the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies Feasts Fasts Liturgies c. What then It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace And without this no Vnity or Order can be preserved in Churches The Apostles saith he gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule viz. of mutual forbearance Rome 14. And herein the Apostle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence but as a Teacher divinely inspired That he was Divinely inspired I do not question but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances which resolution may not always bind when the circumstances are changed For then the meaning of the Apostle must be that whatever differences happen among Christians there must be no determination either way But the direct contrary to this we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem upon the difference that happened in the Christian Churches And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way yet the Apostles made a determination in the case contrary to their Judgment Which shews that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alledged both wayes is no standing Rule to the Christian Church but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Welfare of that Church which they are bound to preserve And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers whereas it is most evident that the true Apostles made this peremptory Decree in a matter of great consequence and against the pretence of Conscience on the other side But saith Dr. O. further The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty provided they did not impose on others and the Dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile Churches did viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed upon them I Answer 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty out of respect to the Law of Moses and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church which might have been extremely hazarded if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters For 1. They were none of their lawful Governors but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them 2. They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation and not as meerly indifferent things And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians as to the Impositions of the false Apostles Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text. The Author of the Letter saith 1. That I ought to have proved that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures and 2. That other Church-Guides had the same Power as the Apostles had But what need all this If it appear 1. That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scriptures as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule for omitting some Divine Rules or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government 2. That it is a standing Rule of Scripture that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church And this I have shewed was the Apostles design in the words of this Text. Sect. 20. Others pretend that the Apostle means no more by these words but that Christians must live up to their knowledge and mind that one thing This is a very new Exposition and the Author of it intends
all partakers of that one Bread And by one Spirit we are all Baptized into one Body whether we be Iews or Gentiles bond or free and have been all made to drink into one Spirit The Vnity of the Christian Church St. Paul saith is to be preserved by the bond of Peace and that Vnity supposeth One Body and One Spirit and the Members of that Body as they are united to one Head whom he calls One Lord so they are joyned together by One Faith and One Baptism Therefore as the Vnity of the Church is founded upon some External Bonds as well as Internal that is One Faith and One Baptism as well as One Lord and One Spirit so the manifestation of this Vnity ought to be by External Acts for How can this Vnity be discovered by Acts meerly Internal and Spiritual as inward love to the Members of the Body being present in Spirit c Therefore the Obligation to preserve the Vnity of the Church doth imply a joyning together with the other Members of the Church in the Common and Publick Acts of Religion 3. Nothing can discharge a Christian from this obligation to Communion with his Fellow-Members but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient Reason for it Because this being a new Society of Christ's own Institution and the obligation to Communion being so strictly enjoyned we are to suppose it still to hold where some plain declaration of his Will to the contrary doth not appear Although God hath with great severity forbidden Killing yet when himself appointed particularly cases wherein Mens Lives were to be taken away we are thereby assur'd that in these cases it is not that killing which is forbidden so in the present case if it appear that although Separation from the Câ—mmunion of Christians be a thing condemned yet if the same Authority do allow particular exemptions we are certain in those cases such Separation is no sin But then as in the former case no Man is exempted from the guilt of shedding blood who upon his own fancy takes upon him to execute Iustice so here no Mans imagination that he doth separate for a good end will justifie his Separation for the guilt of the sin remains as great in it self And there is scarce any other sin more aggravated in the New Testament than this it being so directly contrary to that Vnity of his Church which our Saviour prayed for and his Apostles with so much earnestness recommend to all Christians and use so many Arguments to perswade Men to persevere From hence Irenaeus saith That Christ will come to Iudge those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own advantage than the Churches Vnity who for slight causes or for any make nothing of cutting asunder the great and glorious Body of Christ and do what in them lies to destroy it They speak for Peace saith he but they mean War they strain at a Gnat and swallow Camels The benefit they hope to bring to the Church cannot make amends for the Mischief of their Schism Nothing provokes God more saith St. Chrysostom than to divide his Church Nay saith he the Blood of Mortyrdom will not wash off the guilt of it The Mischief the Church receives by it is greater than it receives from open Enemies for the one makes it more glorious the other exposes it to shame among its Enemies when it is set upon by its own Children This saith he I speak to those who make no great matter of Schism and indifferently go to the Meetings of those who divide the Church If their doctrine be contrary to ours for that reason they ought to abstain if not 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 they ought to do it so much the rather Do no you know what Corah Dathan and Abiram suffer'd and not they only but those that were with them But you say they have the same Faith and they are very Orthodox Why then saith he do they Separate One Loâ—d one Faith one Baptism If they do well we do ill if we do well they do ill If they have the same Doctrines the same Sacraments For what cause do they set up another Church in opposition to ours It is nothing but vain glory ambition and deceit Take away the People from them and you cut off the disease And after much more to that purpose I speak these things saith he that no Man might say he did not know it to be such a sin I tell you and testifie this to you that Separation from the Church or dividing of it is no less a sin than falling into Heresy If the sin then be so great and dangerous Men ought to examin with great care what cases those are wherein Separation may be made without Sin And I do earnestly desire our Brethren as they love their own Souls and would Avoid the Guilt of so Great a Sin Impartially and without Prejudice to consider this passage of Irenaeus and how Parallel it is with their own Case who Separate from us and set up other Churches in opposition to ours which yet they acknowledge to be very Orthodox and to agree with them in the same Doctrine and the same Sacraments 4. There are Three Cases wherein the Scripture allows of Separation First In the case of Idolatrous Worship For the Precepts are as plain that Christians should abstain from Idolatry as that they should preserve the Vnity of the Church Neither be ye Idolaters Flee from Idolatry Keep your selves from Idols Thou shalt love the Lord thy God and him only shalt thou serve And to the case of Idolaters St. Paul applyes the words spoken of old to the Babylonians Come out from among them and be separate and touch not the unclean thing Now in this case where there is so plain a Command there is no doubt of the lawfulness of Separation if Men cannot joyn with a Church in their Religious Worship without doing that which God hath so strictly forbidden Secondly In case of false Doctrine being imposed in stead of true For although in other things great submission is required to the Guides and Governors of the Church yet if any Teachers offer to bring another Gospel or to corrupt the true one St. Paul denounces an Anathema against them and that implies that they should have no Communion with them but look upon them as Persons cut off from the Body like putrid Members lest they should corrupt the rest St. Paul commands Titus when there is no hopes of reclaiming such to exclude them from the Society of Christians St. Iohn forbids all familiar conversation with such The Church of Ephesus is commended for hating the Nicolaitans and the Church of Pergamus reproved for tolerating their Doctrine Thirdly In case Men make things indifferent necessary to Salvation and divide the Church upon that account And this was the case of the false Apostles who urged the
then there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was concerning which these things may be observed 1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessours in Prison which he would have them to doe by turns every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage he gives this reason of it that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men it being now impaired by the fall of some during the persecution In the case of Philumanus Fortunatus and Favorinus he declares he would give no judgment cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint when many of his Clergy were absent And in another Epistle he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage and then he mentions Britius Rogatianus and Numidicus as the chief Presbyters remaining with them besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City And in Constantinople of old saith Iustinian in his Novels were 60 Presbyters for in one he saith The custom was to determin the number and in another that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople Let any one now consider whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations and at Carthage we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians that in the time of Persecution although very many stood firm yet the number of the lapsed was so great that Saint Cyprian saith Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation 2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command nor their own Place nor the future Iudgment of God nor the Bishop who was set over them and had done that which was never done in foregoing times to challenge those things to themselves with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy Wherein he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle saying that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion he complains of these Presbyters that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui Cathedrae reservare reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place and therefore charges that nothing further be done in this matter till his return when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen Lucian returns him answer that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and upon such Discipline as he should impose they were to be received to Communion So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessours they return him answer that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop as an argument of their great modesty and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them and they declare their resolution to doe nothing in this matter till they had a new Bishop By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People to appoint and ordain their own Officers Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers the same he doth soon after concerning Celerinus and Numidicus When he could not go among them himself by reason of the persecution he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters to visit in his name and to take care of the poor and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy Who give an account in the next Epistle that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation 3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People but from the Institution of Christ. So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter Thou art Peter c. And
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of church-Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
species of Churches without God's Authority 3. That the accidental alterations in Discipline do not overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches 1. That our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church This I begin with because Mr. B. so very often makes his Appeal to Antiquity in this matter And my first inquiry shall be into the Episcopacy practised in the African Churches because Mr. B. expresseth an esteem of them above others for in Saint Cyprian 's time he saith they were the best ordered Churches in the world and that the Bishops there were the most godly faithfull peaceable company of Bishops since the Apostles times And of the following times he thus speaks Most of the African Councils saith he were the best in all the world Many good Canons for Church order were made by this and most of the African Councils no Bishops being faithfuller than they Therefore concerning the Episcopacy there practised I shall lay down these two Observations Obs. 1. That it was an inviolable Rule among them That there was to be but one Bishop in a City though the City were never so large or the Christians never so many This one Observation made good quite overthrows Mr. B.'s Hypothesis For upon his principles where ever the Congregation of Christians became so great that they could not conveniently assemble at one place so as to have personal Communion in presence as he speaks there either they must alter the instituted species of Government or they must have more Bishops than one in a City For he saith the Church must be no bigger than that the same Bishop may perform the Pastoral Office to them in present Communion and for this he quotes 1 Thess. 5. 12 13. Heb. 13. 7 17. i.e. their Bishops must be such as they must hear preach and have Conversation with But that this was not so understood in the African Churches appears by their strict observance of this Rule of having but one Bishop in a City how large soever it was And how punctually they thought themselves bound to observe it will appear by this one Instance That one of the greatest and most pernicious Schisms that ever happened might have been prevented if they had yielded to more Bishops than one in a City and that was the Schism of the Donatists upon the competition between Majorinus and Coecilian as the Novatian Schism began at Rome upon a like occasion between Cornelius and Novatian Now was there not all the Reason imaginable upon so important an occasion to have made more Bishops in the same City unless they had thought some Divine Rule prohibited them When there were 46 Presbyters at Rome had it not been fair to have divided them or upon Mr. B.'s principles made so many Bishops that every one might have had three or four for his share But instead of this how doth Saint Cyprian even the holy and meek Saint Cyprian as Saint Augustin calls him aggravate the Schism of Novatian for being chosen a Bishop in the same City where there was one chosen before His words are so considerable to our purpose that I shall set them down Et cum post primum secundus esse non possit quisquis post unum qui solus esse debeat factus est non jam secundus ille sed nullus est Since there cannot be a second after the first whosoever is made Bishop when one is made already who ought to be alone he is not another Bishop but none at all Let Mr. B. reconcile these words to his Hypothesis if he can What! in such a City of Christians as Rome then was where were 46 Presbyters to pronounce it a meer nullity to have a second Bishop chosen Mr. B. would rather have thought there had been need of 46 Bishops but Saint Cyprian who lived somewhat nearer the Apostles times and I am apt to think knew as well the Constitution of Churches then thought it overthrew that Constitution to have more Bishops than one in a City At Carthage it seems some turbulent Presbyters that were not satisfied with Saint Cyprian's Government or it may be looking on the charge as too big for one chose one Fortunatus to be Bishop there with this Saint Cyprian acquaints Cornelius and there tells him how far they had proceeded and what mischief this would be to the Church since the having one Bishop was the best means to prevent Schisms After the election of Cornelius some of the Confessours who had sided with Novatian deserted his Party and were received back again at a solemn Assembly where they confessed their fault and declared That they were not ignorant that as there was but one God and one Christ and one Holy Ghost so there ought to be but one Bishop in the Catholick Church Not according to the senseless interpretation of Pamelius who would have it understood of one Pope but that according to the ancient and regular Discipline and Order of the Church there ought to be but one Bishop in a City After the Martyrdom of Cornelius at Rome Saint Cyprian sends to Rome to know who that one Bishop was that was chosen in his place And the necessity of this Vnity he insists on elsewhere and saith Our Saviour so appointed it unam Cathedram constituit unitatis ejusdem originem ab uno incipientem sua auctoritate disposuit Which the Papists foolishly interpret of Saint Peter's Chair for in his following words he utterly overthrows the supremacy saying all the Apostles were equal and a little after Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum pars tenetur But this is sufficient to my purpose to shew that these holy men these Martyrs and Confessors men that were indeed dying daily and that for Christ too were all agreed that a Bishop there must be and that but one in a City though never so large and full of Christians Saint Augustin in his excellent Epistle to the Donatists gives an account of the proceedings about Caecilian after the election of Majorinus and that Melchiades managing that matter with admirable temper offer'd for the healing of the Schism to receive those who had been ordained by Majorinus with this Proviso that where by reason of the Schism there had been two Bishops in a City he that was first consecrated was to remain Bishop and the other to have another People provided for him For which Saint Augustin commends him as an excellent man a true Son of Peace and Father of Christian People By which we see the best the wisest the most moderate Persons of that time never once thought that there could be more Bishops than one in a City In the famous Conference at Carthage between the Catholick and Donatist Bishops the Rule on both sides was but one Bishop to be allowed of either side of a City and Diocese and if there had been any new made to increase
their number as it was objected on both sides if it were proved they were not to be allowed for generally then every Diocese had two Bishops of the different Parties but in some places they had but one where the People were of one mind and nothing but this notorious Schism gave occasion to such a multiplication of Bishops in Africa both Parties striving to increase their Numbers Sect. 9. Obs. 2. In Cities and Dioceses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places Carthage was a very large City and had great numbers of Christians even in S. Cyprians time as I have already shewed And there besides the Cathedral called Basilica Major Restituta in which the Bishops always sate as Victor Vitensis saith there were several other considerable Churches in which S. Augustine often preached when he went to Carthage as the Basilica Fausti the Basilica Leontiana the Basilica Celerinae mentioned by Victor likewise who saith it was otherwise called Scillitanorum The Basilica Novarum The Basilica Petri. The Basilica Pauli And I do not question there were many others which I have not observed for Victor saith that when Geisericus enter'd Carthage he found there Quodvultdeus the Bishop maximam turbam Clericorum a very great multitude of Clergy all which he immediately banished And without the City there were two great Churches saith Victor one where S. Cyprian suffered Martyrdom and the other where his body was buried at a place called Mappalia In all he reckons about 500 of the Clergy belonging to the Church of Carthage taking in those who were trained up to it And doth Mr. B. imagine all these were intended to serve one Congregation or that all the Christians then in Carthage could have local and presential Communion as he calls it in one Church and at one Altar Sometimes an Altar is taken with a particular respect to a Bishop and so setting up one Altar against another was setting up one Bishop against another as that Phrase is commonly used in Saint Cyprian and Saint Augustin sometimes for the place at which the Christians did communicate and so there were as many Altars as Churches So Fortunatus a Catholick Bishop objected to Petilian the Donatist that in the City where he was Bishop the Hereticks had broken down all the Altars which is the thing Optatus objects so much against them And that there were Altars in all their Churches appears from hence that not onely the Oblations were made there and the Communion received but all the Prayers of the Church were made at them as not onely appears from the African Code and Saint Augustin which I have mentioned elsewhere but from Optatus who upbraiding the Donatists for breaking down the Altars of Churches he tells them that hereby they did what they could to hinder the Churches Prayers for saith he illà c ad aures Dei ascendere solebat populi oratio The Peoples Prayers went up to Heaven that way And that distant places from the City were in the Bishops Diocese and under his care I thus prove In the African Code there is a Canon that no Bishop should leave his Cathedral Church and go to any other Church in his Diocese there to reside which evidently proves that there were not onely more places but more Churches in a Bishops Diocese And where the Donatists had erected new Bishopricks as they often did the African Council decrees that after the decease of such a Bishop if the People had no mind to have another in his room they might be in the Diocese of another Bishop Which shews that they thought the Dioceses might be so large as to hold the People that were under two Bishops And there were many Canons made about the People of the Donatist Bishops In one it was determined that they should belong to the Bishop that converted them without limitation of distance after that that they should belong to the same Diocese they were in before but if the Donatist Bishop were converted then the Diocese was to be divided between them If any Bishop neglected the converting the People of the places belonging to his Diocese he that did take the pains in it was to have those places laid to his Diocese unless sufficient cause were shewed by the Bishop that he was not to blame Let Mr. Baxter now judge whether their Bishopricks were like our Parishes as he confidently affirms Saint Augustin mentions the Municipium Tullense not far from Hippo where there was Presbyter and Clerks under his care and government and he tells this particular story of it that a certain poor man who lived there fell into a trance in which he fancied he saw the Clergy thereabout and among the rest the Presbyter of that place who bade him go to Hippo to be baptized of Augustin who was Bishop there the man did accordingly and the next Easter put in his name among the Competentes and was baptized and after told Saint Augustin the foregoing passages It seems the Donatists were very troublesome in some of the remoter parts of the Diocese of Hippo whereupon Saint Augustin sent one of his Presbyters to Caecilian the Roman President to complain of their insolence and to crave his assistance which he saith he did lest he should be blamed for his negligence who was the Bishop of that Diocese And can we think all these persons had praesential and local Communion with Saint Augustin in his Church at Hippo While he was yet but a Presbyter at Hippo in the absence of the Bishop he writes to Maximinus a Donatist Bishop a sharp Letter for offering to rebaptize a Deacon of their Church who was placed at Mutagena and he saith he went from Hippo to the place himself to be satisfied of the truth of it At the same place lived one Donatus a Presbyter of the Donatists whom Saint Augustin would have had brought to him against his Will to be better instructed as being under his care but the obstinate man rather endeavour'd to make away himself upon which he writes a long Epistle to him In another Epistle he gives an account that there was a place called Fussala which with the Country about it belonged to the Diocese of Hippo where there was abundance of People but almost all Donatists but by his great care in sending Presbyters among them those places were all reduced but because Fussala was 40 miles distant from Hippo he took care to have a Bishop placed among them but as appears by the event he had better have kept it under his own Care For upon the complaints made against their new Bishop he was fain to resume it as appears by a Presbyter of Fussala which he mentions afterwards However it appears that a place 40 miles distance was then under the care of so great a Saint
and so excellent a Bishop as Saint Augustin was And could Mr. B. have found it in his heart to have told him that he did not understand the right constitution of Churches How many Quaere's would Mr. B. have made about the numbers of Souls at Fussala and how he could take upon him the care of a place so far distant from him And it is no hard matter to guess what answer Saint Augustin would have given him But besides this plain evidence of the extent of Dioceses we have as clear proof of Metropolitan Provinces in the African Churches Quidam de Episcopis in Provinciâ nostrâ saith Saint Cyprian and yet he speaks of his Predecessours times which shews the very ancient extent of that Province In provinciâ nostrâ per aliquot Civitates saith he again which shews that more Cities than Carthage were under his care Quoniam latius fusa est provincia nostra in his Epistle to Cornelius In the African Code it appears the Bishop of Carthage had the Primacy by his place in the other Provinces by Seniority of Consecration Victor mentions one Crescens who had 120 Bishops under him as Metropolitan And I hope at least for the sake of the African Bishops Mr. B. will entertain the better opinion of the English Episcopacy Sect. 10. But that he may not think this sort of Episcopacy was onely in these parts of Africa let us enquire into the Episcopacy of the Church of Alexandria And we may suppose Athanasius did not spend all his zeal upon doctrinal points but had some for the right Constitution of Churches and yet it is most certain the Churches under his care could not have personal Communion with him It is observed by Epiphanius that Athanasius did frequently visit the neighbour Churches especially those in Maraeotis of which Athanasius himself gives the best account Maraeotis saith he is a Region belonging to Alexandria which never had either Bishop or Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village and here they had Churches erected in which these Presbyters did officiate All this we have expressly from Athanasius himself whence we observe 1. That here were true Parochial Churches for so Athanasius calls them Churches and not bare Oratories 2. That these had Presbyters fixed among them who performed divine Offices there 3. That these were under the immediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belonged to him 4. That these were at that distance that they could not have local Communion with their Bishop in his Church at Alexandria Which is directly contrary to Mr. Baxter's Episcopacy So in Alexandria it self there were many distant Churches with fixed Presbyters in them as Epiphanius several times observes and it would be a very strange thing indeed if so many Presbyters should have fixed Churches in Alexandria and yet the whole Church of Alexandria be no bigger than to make one Congregation for personal Communion with the Bishop But Mr. Baxter's great argument is from the meeting of the whole multitude with Athanasius in the great Church at Alexandria to keep the Easter Solemnity whence he concludes that the Christians in Alexandria were no more than that the main body of them could meet and hear in one Assembly Whereas all that Athanasius saith amounts to no more than this that the multitude was too great to meet in one of the lesser Churches and therefore a great clamour was raised among them that they might go into the New Church Athanasius pressed them to bear with the inconveniency and disperse themselves into the lesser Churches the People grew impatient and so at last he yielded to them But what is there in all this to prove that all the Christians in the whole City were then present and that this Church would hold them all If a great Assembly should meet at one of the lesser Churches in London upon some Solemn Occasion and finding themselves too big for that place should press the Bishop to open Saint Paul's for that day before it were quite finished because of the greater capacity of the Church for receiving such a number would this prove that Saint Paul's held all the Christians in London Athanasius saith not a word more than that it was Easter and there appeared a great number of People such a one as Christian Princes would wish in a Christian City Doth he say or intimate that all the Christians of the City were present that none of them went to the lesser Churches or were absent though the Croud was so great Doth he not say the multitudes were so great in the smaller Churches in the Lent Assemblies that not a few were stifled and carried home for dead And therefore it was necessary to consider the multitude at such a time In my mind Mr. Baxter might as well prove that the whole Nation of the Iews made but one Congregation because at the dedication of Solomon's Temple there was so great a multitude present that one of the lesser Synagogues could not hold them But the argument is of greater force in this respect that God himself appointed but one Temple for the whole Nation of the Iews and therefore he intended no more than a single Congregational Church But to serve this hypothesis Alexandria it self must be shrunk into a less compass although Dionysius Alexandrinus who was Bishop there saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a very great City and the Geographer published by Gothofred saith it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 an exceeding great City so great that it was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 past mens comprehension and Ammianus Marcellinus saith it was the top of all Cities And for the number of Christians there long before the time of Athanasius Dionysius Alexandrinus saith in a time of great persecution when he was banished he kept up the Assemblies in the City and at Cephro he had a large Church partly of the Christians of Alexandria which followed him and partly from other places and when he was removed thence to Colluthion which was nearer the City such numbers of Christians flocked out of the City to him that they were forced to have distinct Congregations so the words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifie and so Athanasius useth them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 for the Christians meeting in several Congregations If there were such a number of Christians at Alexandria so long before under the sharpest persecution is it possible to imagin in so great a City after Christianity had so long been the Religion of the Empire that the number of Christians there should be no greater than to make one large Congregation There is no hopes of convincing men that can build Theories upon such strange improbabilities I shall onely add one Instance more from Antiquity which is plain enough of it self to shew the
great extent of Diocesan Power then and that is of Theodoret a great and learned Bishop and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches for so many Parishes saith he are in my Diocese which he had then enjoyed twenty six years Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret And yet these Parishes did not change their species for he saith they were Churches still This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle But without any considerable ground unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis For what if Theodoret ' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy Is that a sufficient argument to reject them unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles with the History of those times or with his other Writings Which are the Rules Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death And it is supposed that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him which was the occasion of writing it his other Epistles are so full of it that Mr. B. never read the rest if he calls this into question upon that account That Hypatius Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost which Nicephorus saw doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit But he is much mistaken if he thinks there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples which he compared with the Vatican and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret ' s name Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie to be spurious What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret ' s Works I do not well understand unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them But there are two things he objects which seem more material 1. That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time 2. That he proves from other places in Theodoret that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches 1. As to the first certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove that one such City as Cyrus then was had 800 Churches in it But by Cyrus Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus as will afterwards appear If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy Strabo and Pliny then there would not appear the least improbability in it since many considerable Cities were within it as Beroea now Aleppo and Hierapolis and extended as far as Euphrates Zeugma being comprehended under it The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others in that Province there was a Metropolitan who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus or Cyrrhus But notwithstanding I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province but of his own peculiar Diocese for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City which was under Theodoret's care within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order as he complains in several Epistles and there it is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regio Cyrrhestica and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius where he saith it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth And he saith in another Epistle that Christianity was then so much spread among them that not onely the Cities but the Villages the Fields and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown In his Epistle to Nomus he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion another with the Eunomian another with the Arian Heresie which were all converted by his care and in another place he saith he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion ' s Doctrine in his Diocese and the great pains he took to root it out and the success he had therein And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives as Tillima Targala Nimuza Teleda Telanissus which are sufficient to shew that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches his Diocese being forty miles in length and as many in breadth So that Mr. B. must reject not onley that Epistle to Leo but the rest too and his other Works if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy which is too hard a task to be undertaken without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought 2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses which all men know to have been very different but about the extent of Episcopal Power whether it were limited to one Parochial Church or was extended over many And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this I extreamly failed of my expectation as to the other places of Theodoret which he promised to produce For I find five or six places
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
26 Canon which saith that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which he mentions as an abortive thing published by Iohn Fox which last any one that hath seen them knows to be a mistake nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt yet not so destroyed but with some diligence he might have seen it but it was for nothing of this kind that Book underwent so severe a censure as Mr. B. insinuates but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons which I think are plain in this case But Mr. B. saith this is not the lesser excommunication but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth this is certain the Minister is impowred is required to doe this the question then is whether this be not such a Censure of the Church as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister I grant this is not the lesser excommunication according to the Vse of this Church for that supposeth the sentence passed and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person upon extraordinary occasions But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication as appears by several passages in S. Augustin produced by Spalatensis to this purpose viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other church-Church-communion as well as the Sacrament Which is very true of the greater Excommunication but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders whereby they were suspended from full Communion but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given These were said to be in the state of Penitents It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion others onely on their death-beds others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance of which those were left to be Iudges who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of church-Church-communion but he saith the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull being still Candidates as he calls them so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion but not wholly cast out of the Church because the Christians might as freely converse with these as with any but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries But there was no question wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion there was a Power of Discipline because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged but in so governing the Members of the Church that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion it is thereby evident that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him I answer 1. What need this publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself is not this sufficient I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion he advised them to withdraw themselves from it till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences and then they might come to it Here is no publick Admonition by name and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders and yet the Church be a true Church and Christians obliged to communicate with it as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion But my design is onely to speak to this case so far as the Church is concerned in it Sect. 16. If it be said that notwithstanding this the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed I answer 1. That is not our question but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny And what other abuses have crept in ought in an orderly way to be reformed and no good man will deny his assistance in it 2. It is far easier to separate or complain for want of Discipline than to find out a due way to restore it No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it than Mr. Baxter hath done especially in that it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least 3. The case of our Churches now is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times For the great Reason of Discipline is not that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled for to assert that were Donatism but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
with a Church who are first excommunicated by that Church Yes in these cases they may 1. when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence For otherwise no Church could condemn any excommunicated Persons for Schism if it declared before hand that all those who held such Doctrines or condemned such Practices should be excommunicated To make this plain by Instances Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sentence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism R. Williams and his Company oppose it they upon this are actually excommunicated may the Churches of New England call these men Schismaticks or not If they are Schismaticks notwithstanding the sentence of excommunication then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism By the Constitution of the Churches of France every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatick Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatick because this amounts to an excommunication ipso facto So in Scotland 1641. Subscription to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication if any had been excommunicated on this account would this excuse them from the charge of Schism in the judgement of the Covenanters By the Constitutions of Geneva any one that opposes or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year as Calvin himself relates it Suppose this were meerly excommunication for so long would not Calvin have thought them Schismaticks for all that For he fully declares his mind in this case on occasion of a certain Non-conformist in an Epistle to Farell where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate if that did not prevail they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church which saith he is agreeable to ancient Councils and the mind of God in Scripture therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it Here we see excommunication justified against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church and much more certainly if they publickly affirm them to be Impious Antichristian or Superstitious as 8. Canon expresseth and no Church in the world but will think excommunication reasonable upon the like grounds and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism they may be guilty of it still although excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts 2. If they proceed to form new Churches as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances and let him judge whether all persons so excommunicated would not have been condemned much more for Schismaticks if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs S. Augustin puts the case of good men unjustly excommunicated and he saith they are to bear it with patience for the peace of the Church and such will still maintain the true faith sine ullâ Conventiculorum segregatione without running into separate Meetings although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated Such as these saith he the Father which seeth in secret will reward and crown in secret This kind seems very rare but there want not instances yea there are more than can be believed 2. As to the judgement of Conscience The Author of the Letter out of the Countrey lays the Foundation of the separation upon the force of Scruples mighty Scruples Scruples of a long standing and of a large extent Scruples that there is no hopes to remove without some very overpowering impression on mens minds I am so much of another mind that I think a little impartiality and due consideration would do the business but as long as men read and hear and judge only of one side and think it a temptation to examine things as they ought to do and cry out they are satisfied already there is not much hopes of doing good upon such but I think they can have no great comfort in such Scruples Men that really scruple things out of tenderness of Conscience are sincerely willing to be better informed and glad of any light that brings them satisfaction and do not fly out into rage and violent passion against those who offer to remove their Scruples Hath this been the temper of our scrupulous Brethren of late Let their Scruples be touched never so tenderly they cannot bear it and take it extremely ill of those who would better inform them Mr. B. freely tells me that he that thinks his own or others reasonings will ever change all the truely honest Christians in the Land as to the unlawfulness of the things imposed knoweth so little of matters or of men or of Conscience as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest What is the reason of such a severe saying Where lies the strength and evidence of these Scruples Why may not honest men be cured of their errors and mistakes as I am perswaded these are such which they call Scruples Is there no hopes to bring the People to a better temper and more judgement For I know nothing more is necessary for the cure of them Here is no depth of learning no subtilty of reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about these matters The dispute lies in a narrow compass and men may see light if they will But what if they will not Then we are to consider how far a wilfull mistake or error of Conscience will justifie men I say it doth not cannot justifie them in doing evil and that I am sure breaking the Peace of the Church for the sake of such Scruples is And this I had said in my Sermon which I take to be very material for our scrupulous persons to consider For suppose they should be mistaken doth this error of Conscience justifie their separation or not If not they may be in an ill condition for all their Scruples or their confidence And so Mr. Baxter hath long since declared that if we do through weakness or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful that will not excuse us in our disobedience Our error is our sin and one sin will not excuse another sin But Mr. A. saith 1 That I do ill to put together wilfull Error and mistake of Conscience when I say they do not excuse from sin since there is so great a difference between a wilfull Error and a mistake of simple ignorance What strange cavilling is this When any one may see that I join wilfull both to Error and Mistake And is not a mistake or error of Conscience all one If I had said a mistake of simple ignorance doth not excuse from sin I had contradicted the whole design of that discourse which is to shew that there must be wilfulness in the error or mistake which doth not excuse For I say expresly if
the sign of the Cross at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images 2. For Circumcision which he tells us may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law that he saith If ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing which was never said of any of our Ceremonies And whereas he saith it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony he is much mistaken if their Emperour Claudius say true for he saith it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia and boreing the ear among the Indians And Ludolphus proves it to be no other because it is done by a woman in private without any witnesses 3. As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation But why are things never used by the Primitive Church for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false it is nothing to us brought to parallel our Ceremonies when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church which observed the same kind of Ceremonies The only remaining pretence for the present Separation is that there is a parity of reason as to their Separating from us and our Separating from the Church of Rome For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable then this will hold for themselves because they think so and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike When 1. They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true we reject all their additional Articles in Pius 4. his Creed not only as false but some of them as absurd and unreasonable as men can invent viz. that of Transubstantiation which is made by them the great trying and burning point But what is there which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine as new as false as absurd nay they all yield to the Antiquity to the Truth to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it You may be sure it is some mighty thing for he saith presently after it that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice Alas for him that his modesty should ever hurt him But what is this dangerous Secret that they have hitherto kept in out of meer veneration to the Church of England Let us prepare our selves for this unusual this killing charge Why saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church this Doctrine is contained It is matter of Doctrine then I see although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles as far as they concern Doctrine But what is this notorious doctrine It is saith he that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Did I not fear it was some dreadful thing some notorious heresie condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils But is it said so in plain words or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Consequences No it is plain enough for the Question is What is required of Persons to be baptized Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament Quest. Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform But I pray doth it hence follow that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Are not the words express that they promise both by their Sureties And is promising and performance all one I do not find it so by this Instance For here was a great matter promised and nothing performed It is true the Catechism saith Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptized which supposeth the persons to be baptized capable of performing these things themselves And then comes a Question by way of objection why then are Infants baptized c. to which the sense of the Answer is that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised And now let the Reader judge since this horrible Secret is come out whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church And I know nothing can do them greater Service than such Parallels as these 2. We charge them with those Reasons for Separation which the Scripture allows such as Idolatry perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ and Tyranny over the Consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so But not one of these can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God we worship no Images we invocate no Sains we adore no Host we creep to no Crucifix we kiss no Relicks We equal no traditions with the Gospel we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christs and to dispence with his Laws and Institutions We mangle no Sacraments nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a
quick motion of the hand We do not cheat mens souls with false bills of exchange called Indulgences nor give out that we have the Treasure of the Church in our keeping which we can apply as we see occasion We use no pious frauds to delude the People nor pretend to be infallible as they do when they have a mind to deceive These are things which the Divines of our Church have with great clearness and strength of Reason made good against the Church of Rome and since they cannot be objected against our Church with what face can men suppose the cases of those who separate from each of them to be parallel 3. As to the Ceremonies in the Roman Church and ours there are these considerable differences 1. They have a mighty number as appears by their Rituals and Ceremonials and the great volums written in explication of them we very few and those so very easie and plain that it requires as great skill not to understand ours as it doth to understand theirs 2. They place great holiness in theirs as appears by the Forms of consecration of their Water Oyle Salt Wax Vestments c. but we allow none of these but only the use of certain ceremonies without any preceding Act of the Church importing any peculiar holiness attributed to them 3. They suppose great vertue and efficacy to be in them for the purging away some sorts of sins we utterly deny any such thing to belong to our ceremonies but declare that they are appointed only for Order and Deceny 4. They make their ceremonies being appointed by the Church to become necessary parts of Divine Worship as I have already proved but our Church looks upon them even when determined as things in their own nature indifferent but only required by vertue of that general obedience which we owe to lawful Authority So that as to ceremonies themselves there is a vast disparity between the Roman Church and ours and no man can pretend otherwise that is not either grosly ignorant or doth not wilfully misunderstand the state of the Controversie between them and us Thus I have gone through all the Pleas for the present Separation I could meet with in the Books of my Answerers and I have not concealed the force or strength I saw in any of them And however Mr. A. reproaches me with having a notable talent of misrepresenting my Adversaries a thing which I have alwayes abhorred and never did it wilfully in my life it appearing to me an act of injustice as well as disingenuity yet I do assure him I have endeavoured to understand them truly and to represent them fairly and to judge impartially And although I make no such appeals to the day of Iudgement as others do yet I cannot but declare to the world as one that believes a day of Judgement to come that upon the most diligent search and careful Inquiry I could make into this matter I cannot find any Plea sufficient to justifie in point of conscience the present Separation from the Church of England Monseigneur DEux voyages que j'ay été obligè de faire m'ont empéché de répondre aussi tost que je l'aurois souhaitè a la lettre dont Vôtre Grandeur m'a fait la grace de m'honorer Comme j'étois sur le point de vous en faire des excuses Monsieur de L' Angle est arrivè en ceste ville quime les a fait encor differer dans l'esperance qu' il voudroit bien se charger de ma reponse qu' elle pourroit par ce moien vous étre plus fidellement rendue Il est vray Monsieur que si j'en croyois mon déplaisir je la remettrois encor a une autre fois car je ne peux vous ecrire sans un extreme douleur quand je songe a la matiere surla quelle vous me commandés de vous dire mon sentiment Ie croy que vous le sçavés dejá bien et que vous ne me faites pas l'honneur de me le demander comme en ayant quelque sorte de doute vous me faites plus de justice que cela vous ne me comprenéz pas au nombre de ceux qui ont touchant l ' Eglise d' Angleterre une si mechante opinion Pour moy je n'en avois pas une si mechante d'aucun veritable Anglois je ne pouvois pas me persuader qu' il y en eut un seul qui crût qu'on ne peut éstre dans sa communion sans hasarder son propre salut Pour ceux qui sont engagés dans le parti de l' Eglise Romaine j'en jugeois tout autrement Ils ont des maximes particuliers agissent par d'autres Interests Mais pour ceux qui n'ont aucune liaison avec Rome c'est une chose bien singuliere de les voir passer jusqu ' a cette extremitè que de croire que dans l' Eglise Anglicane on ne peut faire son salut C'est n'avoir gueres de conoissance de la Confession defoy que tout le monde Protestant a si hautement approuveé qui merite en effect les louanges de tout ce qu'il y a de bons Chrestiens Car on ne pouvoit rien faire de plus sage que cette Confession jamais les articles de foy n'ont eté recueillis avec un discernment plus juste plus raisonnable que dans cette excellentâ— piece On a raison de la garder avec tant de veneration dans la Bibliotheque d' Oxford le grand Iuellus pour l'avoir si dignement defendüe est digne d'une louange immortelle C'est d'elle dont Dieu se servit dans le commencement de la Reformation d' Angleterre si elle n'avoit pas été comme son ouvrage il ne l'auroit pas benit d'une façon si avantageuse Le succes qu' elle out devroit fermer la bouche a ceux qui sont les plus animés l'avoir veue trionpher de tant d' Obstacles devroit faire reconnoitre a tout le monde que dieu s'est declarè en sa faveur qu'il est visiblement mélé de son établissement qu'elle a la verité la fermeté de sa parole a qui elle doibt en effect sa naissance son origine Elle est aujourdhuy ce qu'elle ètoit quand elle â—toit formeé on ne peut pas reprocher a Messieurs les Evéques qu'ils y ayent depuis cette terme lá apporté quelque changement Et comment donc s'imaginer qu'elle ayt changé d'usage peut on rien voir de plus inique que de dire qu'un Instrument que Dieu employa autrefois pour l'instruction de tant de gens de bien pour le salut de de tant de peuples pour la
divide rashly from her as they do Is not this to divide from all the antient Churches from all the Churches of the East from all the Protestant Churches which have alwayes had a very great respect for the purity of that of England Is it not horrible impudence to excommunicate her without mercy and to make themselves believe strangely of her for them to imagine that they are the only men in England nay in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and to hold the truths necessary to salvation as they ought to be held Indeed one might make a very odious Parallel betwixt these Teachers and Pope Victor that would needs excommunicate the Churches of Asia because they did not celebrate the Feast of Easter the same day they did at Rome Betwixt them and the Audeans that divided from the Christians and would not endure rich Bishops Betwixt them and the Donatists that would have no communion with them that had been ordained by lapsed Bishops and imagined that their Society was the true Church and the well beloved Spouse that fed her flock in the South Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved For my part as much inclined to Toleration as I am I cannot for all this perswade my self that it ought to be allowed to those that have so little of it for other men and who if they were Masters would certainly give but bad quarter to those that depended upon them I look upon these men as disturbers of the State and Church and who are doubtlesly animated by a Spirit of Sedition Nay I can scarce believe that they are just such as they say they are and I should be something afraid that very dangerous enemies might be hid under colour of these Teachers Societies composed of such persons would be extream dangerous and they could not be suffered without opening the Gate to disorder and advancing towards ones own ruine There are some of these that are composed of more reasonable men but I could wish they were reasonable enough not to separate from those of which the Church of England is composed Especially in the case we are in they should do all for a good agreement and in the present conjuncture of affairs they should understand that there is nothing but a good re-union that can prevent the evils with which England is threatned For to speak the truth I do not see that their Meetings are of any great use or that one may be more comforted there than in the Episcopal Churches When I was at London almost Five years ago I went to several of their private assemblies to see what way they took for the instruction of the people and the preaching of the Word of God But I profess I was not at all edified by it I heard one of the most famous Non-Conformists he preached in a place where there were three men and three or fourscore women he had chosen a Text about the building up the Ruines of Ierusalem and for the explication of it he cited Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times and did not forget to mention a Proverb in Italian Duro con duro non fa muro All this seem'd to me nothing to the purpose and very improper for the poor women and very far from a Spirit that sought nothing but the comfort and edification of his hearers To cantonize themselves and make a Schism to have the liberty to vent such vanities is very ill conduct and the people seem very weak to quit their mutual Assemblies for things that so little deserve their esteem and preference I do not think that any one is obliged to suffer this irregularity It is true that the Assemblies of the Novatians were sometimes suffered at Rome and Constantinople and that even the Donatists had some kind of liberty in the first of these places But they were only strangers and that neither did not indure any long time and as there were but few of them that is not to be drawn into example But it is another case in England and seeing the good of the State and Church depends absolutely upon the union of the people in the point of Religion one cannot there press an universal union too much But it ought to be procured by good means and since the Bishops are persons of great experience of an extraordinary knowledge of a true fatherly zeal and goodness towards their people I hope that they will employ themselves in this great work with all the prudence and charity that are necessary to the succeeding of such a commendable undertaking You particularly My Lord whose moderation and capacity are acknowledged by all the World it looks as if it were a design reserved for your great Wisdom and if you do not succeed it is clear that all others will labour in it but in vain For my part I can contribute nothing to it where I am but Vowes and Prayers and of these I can protest that I make very sincere ones every day for the prosperity of the English Church and that it would please God to order things in such manner that all the Protestants of England for the future might be of one heart and of one soul. I beg your Lordship to be well assured of this and to believe that it is impossible to be with more respect than I am Leyden Sept. 3. 1680. My Lord Your most Humble and most Obedient servant Le Moyne A Paris l' 32. d'Octob Monseigneur RIen ne vous a deu paroistre si estrange ny si incivil que mon silence sur la lettre que vous me fîstes l'honneur de m'escrire il y a environ trois mois Il est pourtant vray que je n'ay rien a me reprocher sur cela a fin que vous le croyiez comme moy vous voulez bien me permettre de vous dire comment la chose s'est passée Quand on m'apporta vostre lettre j'estois retombé dans une grande violente fiebvre dont Dieu m'a affligé durant quatre ou cinq mois qui m'a mené jusqu'a deux doits de la mort Ie priay un de mes amis qui estoit alors dans ma chambre de l'ouvrir de me dire le nom de celuy qui me l'escrivoit mais il se trouva que vous aviez oublié de la signer sur quoy je me l'a fis apporter pour voir si je n'en connoistrois point le caractére Et ce fut encore inutilement par ce que jusqu'alors je n' avois rien veu de vostre main Cela me fit croire qu'elle avoit esté escrite par celuy lá mesme qui l'avoit apportée pour m'attrapper dix ou douze sous de port car ce petit stratageme est assez commun en
way faulty yet I cannot choose but be something ashamed But to come to the contents of your Letter I cannot express to you with how much grief I understand that your divisions continue at a time in which there are such pressing reasons for being Reunited Above all that which you tell me of writings that are at this time published to make men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private persons without sinning seems to me a thing so unreasonable in it self and so very unseasonable now that I should scarce believe it if it were not attested by a person of your merit and consideration My Lord you know well what my sentiments are and always have been in this matter and the way which I used two years ago when I was in England in frequenting your assemblies and preaching too in a Congregation that is under the jurisdiction of the Church of England sufficiently shews that I am very far from believing that her Communion is unlawful And this also proves very evidently that my opinion in this matter is the same that is holden by our Churches because it is not imaginable that I would without any necessity have done a thing which would have drawn the displeasure of my Brethren upon me and which at my return would have exposed my self to be blamed if not to be censured by them My Lord I would to God that all the mistaken Christians that are in the world would receive your Reformation I would with all my heart spend all the blood I have to procure them so great a good And I am sure with what an exceeding Joy our Churches would enter into their Communion if being pure in their opinions for Doctrine they differed no more from us than by Surplices and innocent Ceremonies and some diversity of Orders in the Government of the Church And by this my Lord you may perceive what I have to answer to your second question For since the Church of England is a true Church of our Lord since her Worship and Doctrines are pure and have nothing in them contrary to the word of God and since that when the Reformation was there received it was received together with Episcopacy and with the establishment of the Liturgy and Ceremonies which are there in use at this day it is without doubt the duty of all the Reformed of your Realm to keep themselves inseparably united to the Church And those that do not do this upon pretence that they should desire more simplicity in that Ceremonies and less of inequality among the Ministers do certainly commit a very great sin For Schism is the most formidable evil that can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this Christian charity obliges all good men to bear with their Brethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the dispute is ought to seem even in the eyes of those that have the most aversion for them And this was so much the opinion of our great and excellent Calvin that in his Treatise of the necessity of the Reformation he makes no difficulty to say That if there should be any so unreasonable as to refuse the Communion of a Church that was pure in its Worship and Doctrine and not to submit himself with respect to its Government under pretence that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours is there would be no Censure nor rigour of Discipline that ought not to be exercised upon them Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatear si qui erunt qui non eum revereantur summaque obedientia observent And Beza himself who did not in the general approve of the Episcopal Government makes such a distinction of yours and is so far from believing that one may or that one ought to take occasion from thence to separate from your Church that he prays earnestly to God that she may always remain in that happy estate in which she had been put and preserved by the blood by the purity of the Faith and by the wise conduct of her excellent Bishops Quod si nunc Anglicana Ecclesia instaurata suorum Episcoporum et Archiepiscoporum authoritate persistat quemadmodum hoc nostrâ memoriâ contigit ut ejus ordinis homines non tantum insignes Dei Martyres sed etiam praestantissimos Pastores et Doctores habuerit frautur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ quae utinam illi sit perpetua But my Lord although the first Authors of the Separation which troubles you be extraordinarily to blame and though those that continue it and strengthen it by their unreasonable and passionate Writings be extreamly so too it is certain yet that among the multitude that follows them there is a very great number of good-men whose faith is pure and whose piety is sincere and who remain separate from you only because their simplicity is surprized and because they have been frightned with the bugbear words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist which are continually beaten into their ears I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom St. Paul said they were of the Body for all that And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops such as you ought to say of them though in something a different sense as Optatus Milevitanus said of the Donatists of his time Si Collegium Episcopale nolunt nobiscum habere tamen Fraâ—res sunt In the name of God then my Lord do all that possibly you can to bring them back to their duty by sweetness and charity which is only able to do great things on these occasions For men who have always something of pride do commonly oppose every thing that seems to them to act by bare Authority only but they scarce ever fail to yield themselves up to forbearance and condescension Mansuetus homo cordis est medicus I do not pretend My Lord to thrust my self in to give you any particular advice in this case you that see things near at hand and that have a heart deeply affected with Christian Charity will judge better than any man what remedies are the most proper for so great an evil and I am sure that if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the a staining from some expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the colour of some habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great pleasure And I think I have read in some part of the Vindiciae of Mr â—ean of Windsor that these were the
join tyranny over the Soul and that they will force the Conscience by imposing a necessity to believe that which they believe and to practise that which they practise For in this case the foundation and true cause of external communion being no more the external communion to its self ceases of right and there is not any that is lawfull to be had any more with such According to the second maxime we do not believe that a single difference of government or discipline nor even a difference of Ceremonies innocent in their own nature is a sufficient occasion to break the sacred bond of Communion Wherefore our Churches have always looked upon and considered yours not onely as a Sister but as an Elder Sister for which we ought to have a kindness accompanied with respect and veneration and for which we do present most ardent prayers unto God without ceasing We do not enter into the comparison of your Order with that under which we live We know that there is not neither can there be any amongst men which by reason of our natural corruption is not subject to inconveniencies ours has hers as well as yours and the one and the other without doubt have their advantages and disadvantages in divers respects alternis vincunt vincuntur It is enough for us to know that the same Divine Providence which by an indispensable necessity and by the conjuncture of affairs did at the beginning of the Reformation put our Churches under that of the Presbytery has put yours under that of the Episcopacy and as we are assured that you do not despise our simplicity so neither ought we to oppose our selves against your preeminence So that my Lord we utterly disapprove and see with grief certain extremes whereinto some of the one side and the other do cast themselves The one looking upon Episcopacy as an order so absolutely necessary that without it there can be no Ecclesiastical society nor lawfull vocation nor hope of Salvation and the other looking upon it with indignation as a rellque of Antichristianism These are equally heats and excesses which do not come from him that calls us and which do offend against the laws of wisedom and charity These my Lord are our true and sincere common opinions For what concerns you since you desire that I would descend a little more particularly into the state that your own Church is in by reason of the intestine divisions that trouble it give me leave not to tell you my thoughts without declaring my wishes and the desires of my heart upon a matter so important as this is I could wish then with all my sould that those that are gone so far as this point to think to break the external bonds and the mutual dependance of your Flocks to give every particular Church a kind of sovereignty of government would consider well whether that they pretend to doe be not directly contrary to the spirit of Christianity which is a spirit of union and society and not of division That they would consider that under the pretence that the principle of the Reformed was to abhor men's domineering over Faith and Conscience as a thing destructive of Religion we ought not for all that to reject the bridle of Discipline nor to shake off the whole yoke of Government nor deprive our selves of the succours we might draw out of a general Union for to strengthen us in the true Faith and in true Piety That they would consider in fine that the same reason which makes them desire the Independency of the Flocks may be likewise imployed to establish the Independency of the persons in every Flock For a Flock has no more right to desire to be Independent upon other Flocks than a person might have to desire to be Independent upon other persons But this would be to bring all discipline to nothing to throw the Church as much as in us lies into a horrible confusion and to expose the heritage of the Lord to the reproach of its adversaries For what concerns those which amongst you they call Presbyterians as I am perswaded that they have light and wisedom and zeal so I could wish with all my heart that they would observe more moderation in the scandal they believe they have heretofore received from the Episcopal Order and that they would distinguish the Persons from the Ministry The persons that possess the places have not onely their faults but it may happen too sometimes that the most holy and most eminent places may be possessed by wicked men and in that case reason and peity do equally require that we should not confound the Ministry with the Minister At present that God by his grace has taken away this scandal from before their eyes and made them see piety zeal and constancy for the preservation of Religion in the persons of the Bishops I hope that this will not a little contribute to the sweetning of their spirits Besides I could wish that they would be pleased to consider that if there be some unpleasant inconveniencies in the Episcopal Government as I do not doubt but there are there are too some very unpleasant ones in the Presbyterian as I have said already No order whose execution is in the hands of men is exempt from them an equality has its faults and excesses to be feared as well as a superiority Therefore it is not the most safe and wise way to leap from the one to the other nor to hazard the making a general concussion upon the hopes of being better though one should be in authority and power to doe it Christian prudence justice and charity do not permit us to proceed to such daring and dangerous extremes for a single difference of Government It is most safe and wise to indeavour to provide some kind of temper to avoid or to lessen as much as may be the inconveniencies that are feared and not have recourse to violent remedies I shall not be afraid to give that name to the holding of assemblies apart and separating from the publick assemblies and withdrawing themselves from under your government There is no man that does not see that this would be real schism which in it self and of its own nature cannot choose but be always odious to God and men and of which the Authours and Patrons cannot avoid the rendring an account before the Tribunal of our common Master When Saint Paul forbad us to forsake the assembling of our selves together he did not onely condemn those that did not come thither but stayed at home but those too without doubt that held other assemblies in opposition to the publick ones For this is to break the bond of Christian charity which does not onely join us with some of our brethren but with all our brethren to receive from them and to give them edification by living together in the same communion And it would be to no purpose to pretend that our conscience did oppose our being
present at those assemblies that are held under a Government that we do not approve and that that would be to approve outwardly what we inwardly condemn For besides that it would be necessary to examin well the question whether these oppositions do not proceed from a conscience mistaken by a precipitate judgment since that the best men are often subject to fram to themselves such scruples as are not altogether lawfull at the bottom Further than this it is necessary to distingush three kinds of things the one those which the conscience approves and admits of and in which it does fully acquiesce the other which she looks upon as intolerable and destructive to the glory of God and the true faith or true piety and the hopes of salvation and others lastly which are between these that is to say such as we do not fully approve as to the truth but yet we do not believe them mortal enemies to true piety and salvation in a word such as we look upon as stains and tolerable infirmities I affirm that when we find things of this second rank in any Assemblies or those which the Conscience judges such we cannot be present there and the whole question will be reduced to this to know whether we be not mistaken where we ought to take good heed that we do not make a rash judgment But to imagine that we cannot with a good Conscience be present at Assemblies but onely when we do fully and generally approve of all things in them it is certainly not to know neither the use of charity nor the laws of Christian society This principle would overturn all Churches for I cannot tell whether there be any whose government discipline outward form usages and practices be of such perfection that there is nothing at all in them to blame and however it be as the judgments of men are very different this would be to open the gate to continual separations and to abolish all Assemblies It is therefore certain that Conscience does not oblige us to withdraw from the Assemblies but on the contrary it obliges us to join with them when the things that offend us are tolerable and do not hinder the salutary efficacy of the Word of the Divine Worship and of the Sacraments 'T is the favour of this charitable patience that justifies our being present at those things which we do not perfectly approve See what St. Paul says to the Philippians chap. 3. If in any thing ye be otherways minded God shall reveal even this unto you Nevertheless whereto we have already attained let us walk by the same rule let us mind the same thing This is very far from saying as soon as ye have the least contrary sentiment separate your selves Conscience will not allow you to remain together Consilia separationis says St. Augustin against Parmenian inania sunt perniciosa plus perturbant infirmos bonos quam corrigant animosos malos What deadly effects would not such a separation produce if it were established amongst you As the dispositions of men are one should quickly see to spring from hence a difference of interests of parties of opinions even in respect of the civil society mutual hatred and all the other sad consequences which a division not tempered with charity does naturally produce I let alone the scandal which all the Reformed Churches of Europe would receive by 〈…〉 which their Adversaries would have and we advantages which they would draw from it which in all appearance would not be small I have too good an opinion of those Gentlemen who believe that the Presbyterian Government is to be preferred before the Episcopal not to be perswaded that they make wise and serious reflections upon all these things and many more which their own knowledge furnishes them with and that conscience and the love of the Protestant Religion will always hinder them from doing any thing that may be blamed before God and men For in fine I cannot believe that there is any one amongst them that looks upon your Episcopacy or your Discipline or certain Ceremonies which you observe as blots and capital errours which hinder a man from obtaining salvation even with facility in your Assemblies and under your Government The question here is not about the Esse or the bene Esse but onely about the melius Esse that they dispute with you and this being so justice charity the love of peace prudence and zeal for Religion in the general will never allow that they should divide themselves from you But my Lord since you have put the pen into my hand upon this subject I beseech you pardon my freedom if it go so far as to tell you what I think you also ought to doe on your part I hope then that on these opportunities that God presents unto you you will make all the world see and convince the most incredulous that you have piety zeal and the fear of God and that you are worthy labourers and worthy servants of Jesus Christ. This is the tetimony which all good men do already give you and none how spightfull soever he be dares to contradict it and I do not doubt but that you will carry on your calling to the end But besides this my Lord I hope you willnot be wanting in the duties of charity and the spirit of peace and that when the dispute shall be onely of some temperaments or of some Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block and which in themselves are nothing in comparison of an intire reunion of your Church under your holy Ministry you will make it seen that you love the Spouse of your Master more than your selves and that it is not so much from your greatness and your Ecclesiastical dignity that you desire to receive your glory and your joy as from your pastoral vertues and the ardent care you take of your Flocks I hope too that those you have chosen and called to the holy Ministry and those which hereafter you shall with a prudent diseretion call unto it being governed not onely by sweetness but likewise by severity of discipline when severity shall be necessary will tread in your steps and happily follow the example which you shall give them that they may be themselves for an example and edification to the Churches that are committed to them I conclude my Lord with very earnest prayers which I present to God with all my heart that it would please him always to preseve unto you the light of his Gospel and to pour out upon the whole body of your Ministry an abundant measure of his unction and heavenly benediction of which that of the old Aaron was but a shadow that it may be not the emblem and image of brotherly concord like the unction of old but the cause and bond of it I pray him that he would more and more bring back the heart of the Children to the Fathers and of the Fathers to the Children that your Church may
be happy and pleasant as the Paradise of God Lastly I pray that he would preserve you my Lord in perfect and long health for his glory and the good and advantage of that great and considerable part of his field which he has given you to cultivate and which you do cultivate so happily I desire too the help of your holy prayers and the continuance of the honour of your affection protesting to you that I will be all my life with all the respect that I owe you My Lord Your most humble and most obedient Servant and Son in Iesus Christ CLAUDE FINIS A Catalogue of some Books Printed for Henry Mortclock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended answer of T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of Schism and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined The Second Edition corrected by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the True Reason of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Irenicum A Weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Quarto A Discourse concering the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant with a particular Account of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Octavo An Answer to several Late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled a Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. the first part Octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Rom. Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church by Edw. Stillingflect D. D. Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book cutituled Catholicks no Idolaters by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty THE END Arch-Bishop Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition p. 423. Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works n. 34. Vita Juelli per Humâ—red p. 255. Preface to 2d Vol. of Serm. Sect. 11. Preface to the First Volume Sect. 18. Acts and Monuments Tom. 3. p. 171. Foxes and Firebrands 1680. Church History l. 1. p. 81. History of Presbyter l. 6. p. 257. Annales Elizabethae A. D. 1568. V. Thom. à Iesu de natura divinae Orationis Defence of the Answer p. 605. Page 55. Fair warning second Part Printed by H. March 1663. Contzen Politic l. 2. c. 18 Sect. 6 Sect. 9. Coleman's Trâ—al p. 101 Vindiciae libertatis Evangelii Or a Iustification of our present Indulgence and acceptance of Licences 1672. p. 12. Sacrilegious desertion rebuked and Tolerated Preaching Vindicated 1672. Answer to Sacrileg desert p. 171. 1672. Page 71. Page 72. Page 32. Page 250. Preface to the Defence of the Cure p. 17. Defence of the Cure of Divisions introduction p. 52 c. Sacrilegious desertion p. 103 104. Defence of the Cure p. 53. Dr. O. Vindication p. 4. Letter out of the Country p. 7. Pagâ— 4. Mischief of Impos end of the Preface Preface p. 11 13. Page 15. Mischief of Imposition Preface towards the end Christian Direct Cases Eccles. p. 49. Defence of Cure of Divis Introd p. 55. Ib. p. 88. Arch-Bishop Whitgift ' s Defence c. p. 423. Several Conferences p. 258 c. Orig. Sucr l. 2. ch 8. p. 220. Orig. Sacr. p. 367 368. Papers for Accommodation p. 51. Answer to R. Williams p. 129. Irenic p. 123. Page 5. Page 6 7. Page 8. Co. Iast 4. Part. 323 324. Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131. Mischief of Impositions Preface Fresh suit against Ceremonies p. 467. Pet. Martyr Epist. Theolog Hoopero Buc. r. Script Anglic. p. 708. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319. Ridiey's Articles of Visitation 1550. Vindicat. of Nonconf p. 13. P. 35. 37. Iacob's Answer to Iohnson p. 20 21. Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason Bradford's Confer with the Bâ— Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298. Iacob ' s Answer p. 82. Letters of the Martyrs p. 50. Plea for Peace p. 1â—0 Page 19. Page 21. Calvin Ep. 164. Ep. 55. Ep. 165. Tr. of Fr. p. 30. Page 31. Letters of the Martyrs p. 60. Bonavent 〈◊〉 Ps. 21. Angel Roecha de Sollâ—â—i Communione Summi Pontificis p. 33. 38. Calvin Epist. ad Sadolet De verâ Eccl. Reformatione c. 16. â—â—â—olamp Epist. f. 17. Bucer Scriâ—t â—â—gl p. 479. Dialogue between a Soldier of Barwick and a-English Chaplain p. 5 6. Beza Epist. 23. Part of a Register p. 23. Beza Epist. 24. p 148. Gualter Ep. ded ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad Câ—rinth Zanchii Epist l. 2. p. 391. See his Letter in Fullers Church-History l. 9. p. â—06 Bullinger Ep. ad Robert Winton in the Appendix to Bishop Whitgifts first Book Parker on the Cross Part. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 2. Vide Profane Schism of the Brownists Ch. 12. Giffords first Treatise against the Donatists of England Preface Gifford's Second Treatise Preface Answer to Giffords Preface Dangerous Positions c. l. 3. c. 5. The Second Answer for Communicating p. 20. Printed by John Windet A. D. 1588. Page 46. Answer to Ainsworth p. 13. Page 57. Preface to the Readâ—r p. 17. Brownists Apology p. 7. A. D. 1604. A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England Middleburgh p. 3. A. D. 1599. Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply n. 4. p. 240. Brownists Apol. p. 92. Brownists Apology p 7. Barrow ib. Barrow's Refutation of Giffard Preface to the Reader Sum of the Causes of Separation Ibid. Brownists Apology p. 7 8 9. Ainsworth's Counter-poyson p. 3. Ib. p. 87. T. Cs. Letter to Harrison against Separation in Defence of the Admonition to the followers of Brown p. 98 99. Page 106. Page 107. Page 91. Counterpoyson p. 117. Ball against Can p. 77. Giffard's Answer to the Brownists p. 55. Grave Confutation c. p. 9 10 11. â—ravâ—conâ—utation c. â— 12 13 15. Ibid. Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8. Giffard's Plain Declaration c. Preface Answ. to the Brown p. 10 11. Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation Sect. 2. highly commended by Mr. J. Cotton in his Preface before his Commentaries on 4 John Iâ— Sect. C 7 8. V. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson Hildershams Letter Sect. 3. Grave Confutation
qui ne vouloient point de communion avec ceux qui avoient esté ordines par des Evéques laches qui s'imaginoient que leur societé étoit la veritable Eglise l'épouse bien aimée qui paissoit son troupeau vers le midi Entre eux ceux de la communion Romaine qui ont si bonne opinion de leur Eglise que hors d'elle ils ne s'imaginent pas qu'un puisse jamais acquerir le Salut Pour moy quelque enclin que je sois a la tolerance je ne pourois pourtant me persuader qu'il en faille avoir pour ceux qui en ont si peu pour les autres que s'ils étoient les maitres feroient assurement un mauvais quartiér a ceux qui dependroient d'eux Ie regarde ces gens lá comme de perturbateurs de l'Estat de l'Eglise qui sont infalliblement animés d'un esprit de sedition I'ay méme de la paine a croire qu'ils soient justement ce qu'ils disent estre je craindrois bien que sous ces Docteurs il n'y eust des ennemis tres dangereux qui fussent cachés Des Societés composées detelles personnes seroient extrement perilleuses on ne les pourroit soufrir sans ouvrir la porte au disordre travailler asa propre ruine Ily en a de composées de personnes plus raisonnables Mais j'y voudrois qu'elles le fussent assez pour ne se point separer de celles qui composent l' Eglise Anglicane particulierement au terme ou nous sommes elles devroient tout faire pour une bonne Reconciliation dans le conjuncture des affaires presentes ils devroient bien s'aperçevoir qu'il n'y a qu'une bonne reunion qui puisse prevenir les maux dont l'Angleterre est menacée Car pour dire la verité je ne voi pas que leue Meetings soient de fort grande utilité qu'on puisse s'y consoler davantage que dans les Eglises Episcopales Quand j'estois a Londres il y a bien tost cinq ans je me trouvay en plusieurs assemblées particulieres pour voir comme on l'y prenoit pour l'instruction du peuple la predication de la parole de Dieu Mais j'avoue que je â—'en receus aucune edification I'entendis un de plus fameux Non-conformistes Il pre-choit en vn lieu ou il y avoit trois hommes soissante ou quatre vingt â—emmes Il avoit choisi un texte touchant le restablissement des ruines de Ierusalem pour l'expliquer il cita cent fois Plinie Vitruve n'oublia pas de dire en Italien ce proverbe duro con duro non fa muro Tout cela me parut hors de propos fort peu a propos pour des femmelettes tres eloigné d'un esprit qui ne cherche que la consolation l'edification de ses auditeurs Se Cantonner faire un schisme pour avoir la liberté de debiter de telles vanitâ—s est une fort mâ—â—vaise conduite les peuples paroissent bien â—â—ibles de quitter leur mutuelles assemblées pour de choses qui mâ—ritent â—i peu leur estime leur preference Ie n'estime pas qu'on soit en obligation de souffrir ce dereglement Il est vray qu'autrefois on souffroit les Assemblées de Novatiens á Rome à Constantinople que le Donatistes a voient en la premiere place quelque sorte de liberté Mais c'estoit les Estrangers cela méme ne dura pas long temps comme il'y en avoit peu cela ne tiroit pas en consequence Mais c'est un autre fait en Angleterre comme le bien de l' Estat de l' Eglise depend absolument de l'union du peuple sur le poinct de la Religion on n'y pourroit trop presser une union universelle Mais il la faut procurer par les bonnes voyes comme Messieurs les Evéques sont de personnes d'une grande experience d'un Scavoir extraordinaire d'un zele d'une bonté envers leur peuples veritablement paternelle j'espere qu'ils s'employeront a câ—grand Oâ—rage avec toute la prudence la charitè qui sâ—nt necessâ—ires pour faire reüssir une si louable entreprise t'ous particulierement Monseigneur dont la moderation la capacité sont reconnües de tout le mâ—nde il semble que 〈◊〉 soit un dessein reservé pour votre grande Sagâ—sse 〈◊〉 vous n'y reuscistes pas apparemment que tous les autres ' y travailleront inutilement Pour mor je re 〈◊〉 â—â—â—tribuer d'icy que de voâ—us que de prâ—res 〈◊〉 bien protester que j'en fais tous les jours de fâ—â—r sinceres pour la prosperité de 〈…〉 qu'il plaise a Dieu faire en sorte que tous les Protestants d'Angleterre ne soyent a l'avenir qu'un coeur qu'une Ame. Ie prie Vostre Grandeur d'en estre bien persuadé de croire qu'il n'est pas possible d'estre avec plus de respect que je le suis A Leyden 3 Septemb 1680. Monseigneur Votre tres humble tres Obeissant Serviteur Le Moyne First Letter A Letter from Monsieur le Moyne Professor of Divinity at Leyden to my Lord Bishop of London concerning the nature of our present Differences and the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England My Lord TWo Journeys that I have been obliged to take have hindered me from answering the Letter with which your Lordship did me the favour to honour me so soon as I could have wished Just as I was about to excuse my self to you for it Monsieur de l' Angle came to this Town which made me defer it longer yet in hopes that he would charge himself with my answer and that by that means it might be brought unto you more safely It is true my Lord that if I should hearken to my own unwillingness I should put it off still to another time for I cannot write unto you without being extreamly grieved when I think upon the matter of which you command me to tell you my opinion I believe that you know it already and that you do not do me the honour to ask it of me as if you had any kind of doubt of it You do me more right than so and you do not account me of the number of those that have so ill an opinion of the Church of England For my part I had not so bad a one of any true English-man and I could not have perswaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a man could not be of her communion without hazarding his own salvation For those that are engaged in
the party of the Church of Rome I judged quite otherwise of them they have particular Maxims and act by other interests But for those that have no tye to Rome it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extream as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith which all the Protestant World has so highly approved and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford and the great Iewell deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England And if it had not been as it were his work he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner The success that it has had ought to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate and it 's having triumphed over so many obstacles should make all the World acknowledge that God has declared himself in favour of it and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word to which in effect it owes its birth and original It is the same at present as it was when it was made and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time And how then can it be imagined that it has changed its use And can there be any thing more unjust than to say that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people for the consolation of so many good men for the salvation of so many believers is now become a destructive and pernicious thing If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent your Divine Service is so too for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry You adore nothing but God alone in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature And if there be some Ceremonies there which one shall not meet with in some other places this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity to put off all Charity not to know much what souls are worth not to understand the nature of things indifferent to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally that are willing to submit themselves unto them It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any For where has it been ever seen that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline and things that regard but the out-side and order of the Church and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth Can these things cause death and distill poyson into a soul Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths and as there is nothing but these that can save so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation For the Episcopal Government what is there in it that is dangerous and may reasonably alarm mens consciences And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory and shutting the Gates of Heaven who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government If it were contrary to the truth and the attainment of eternal happiness is it credible that God had so highly approved it and permitted his Church to be tyrannized over by it for so many Ages For who was it that did govern it Who was it that did make up its Councils as well General as particular Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted Was it not the Bishops And is it not to their wise conduct to which next under God his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was inveloped Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe In truth I think they might make the same use of this as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place but then his courage his zeal his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Hereticks that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it he would have to bear the name of Anastasia because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth and cleared it from the error that lay upon it and by his continual cares had caused it as it were to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection It is this too that the Bishops of England have done they saw not only one truth but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them than it was any where else The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design the enemies without and those within as terrible as they seem do not fright them they undertake this great work and do not leave it till they had brought it about and raised up the truth and placed it again upon the Throne in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection But if their Churches have not that title the thing it self belongs unto them and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these but lectures and praises of the pure truth Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it but to look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church Thus all the Protestants of France do those of Geneva those of Switzerland and German and those of Holland too for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort and shewed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England And from whence does it then come that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present and