as Christians and Brethren of the same Communion with us is because these differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christ's Body I Answer by denying that to be the true and adequate Reason for the true Reason is because in the Case supposed of two Churches independent one on the other and not subject to any Common Governour the one Church has no Power to impose Rites and Ceremonies on the other and consequently no sufficient ground to quarrel with it meerly for disagreeing from it in matter of Ceremony but if any of the members of one of the Churches refuse to submit to the Rites appointed by their own proper Governours their Agreement in Fundamentals is no sufficient ground why either their own or the other Church should receive them to Sacramental Communion He says indeed that those Differences do not hinder their being real Members of Christs Body But 1. does he hold that every one who is really a member of Christs Body ought eo nomine to be admitted to all the Privileges of Christian Communion if he does he must either deny that any real member of Christs Body can do any notorious wrong to his Neighbour by word or deed or else he must condemn our Church for requiring the Minister of each Parish to repell such a Person from the Communion till either he makes actual recompence for the Injury or declare himself fully resolv'd to do it when conveniently he may If not then the meer consideration that such a man is really a a member of Christs Body does not oblige any in whose Power it is to admit him to all those Privileges 2. Does he hold that meer agreeing in Fundamentals is all that 's required to the being a real member of Christ If not then neither is that sufficient to qualifie a man for all the Privileges of Christian Communion 3. I suppose he will not deny that there are Practical as well as Speculative Fundamentals and I presume he is of Opinion That Obedience to our Lawful Governours in things Lawful is one of the Fundamentals of Practice If he denies the former he contradicts the Doctrin of some of his own Testimonies which affirm That there are Fundamental Articles of Faith without which Christian Faith cannot subsist nor Everlasting Life be obtain'd and That there are also Fundamental Heads of Discipline p. 56. and that those are so which promote and maintain the means of Salvation and without which we cannot live a Christian Life And that whosoever perishes must be separated from the Foundation by some Fundamental Error in Doctrin or in Practice which supposes that there are Fundamentals of Practice as well as Belief As to the latter he confesses pag. 187. of his Book That in those matters which are not apparently forbidden by the clear Word of God men ought to yield Obedience to the Commands of their Superiours and if he will own that they ought to do so on pain of Damnation as I hope he will then 't is a Fundamental Duty even in his own account That Christian therefore that does not think it such a Duty is by this Doctrin guilty of a Fundamental Error in reference to Christian Practice and he who does think it his duty and does not Act accordingly is guilty of a damnable Neglect Now I desire to know of this Author 1. Whether meer agreeing to Fundamentals whether of Belief or Practice that is assenting to them will constitute and continue a man a real member of Christs Body without at least resolving to Act accordingly if there be not time for more and the performance of that Resolution if there be 2. Whether differences in the Fundamentals of Practice will not hinder men from being real members of Christs Body 3. Whether though they agree in the Fundamentals of Practice that is own and assent to them as matter of necessary Duty in order to Salvation yet if they persist in the Neglect of any part of such Duty they ought to be own'd by the Church either as real members of Christ or as Persons to whom belong all the Privileges of Christian Communion If he says they ought I desire to know 4. Why they should be acknowled'gd as Persons rightly qualified for the Privileges of Christianity here or its Rewards hereafter who are either so Ignorant as not to know or so negligent as not to Practise that which Christianity has made Fundamentally necessary to Salvation to be both Known and Practised Particularly I would willingly be inform'd by this man whether account the preservation of the External Unity of the particular Church whether National Diocesan or Parochial of which men are members a Fundamental of Practice or no. If he does how can he account those Persons real members of Christs Body who are so far from preserving that Unity in either of those Churches that they industriously destroy it in all of them not submitting themselves to the Rules of Order and Government appointed for either of them If he does not then why does he 1. expresly Acknowledge That Schisms and Divisions do apparently dissolve the Church-Vnity And 2. by asking those questions pag. 28. of his Book implicitely Acknowledge That Persons become Schismatical by refusing to be One with us in Discipline and by renouncing Communion with us in our Publick Worship supposing there be nothing Evil in it And 3. pronounce all Separate Congregations Schismatical for their not being subject to the Government of our Diocesans p. 59. And then 4. Acknowledge the Sin of Schism to be an heinous destructive and pernicious Evil one of those fleshly works which they who do shall not inherit the Kingdom of God Chap. 2. pag. 24. 25. It must follow therefore from his own Principles and Concessions That they who are guilty of Schism are guilty of Erring in a Fundamental of Practice Now since Schism is by his own Confession so pernicious an Evil since by his own Confession also refusing to be One with the Church of England in Communion with its Publick Worship is a Breach and Dissolution of Church-Unity since also refusing subjection to the Government of our Diocesan Bishops is dissolving the Unity of Discipline and therefore Schismatical and since all separate Congregations in this Nation are in his own Opinion guilty of Schism 't is evident 1. That the members of those Congregations either do Not Agree in all the Fundamentals of Practice or else do Not Act suitably to that Agreement but are so far from it that they persist in Schismatical Practices contrary to the dictate of their Judgement and Conscience 2. That they are not of the same Communion with us and 3. That the Pleas which this Prefacer makes use of in their behalf pag. 58. viz. Their Agreement in Fundamentals and their being real members of Christs Body are very insufficient because by dissolving as much as in them lie the Unity of the Church of England and its Discipline they practically differ in a Fundamental
with those Constitutions also And I doubt himself is not so strong and hardy as to affirm that our Lyturgy and Diocesan Episcopacy are things founded on a Divine unchangeable Law And if they be not his Arguments will conclude against them as well as against the imposition of Ceremonies As for the Testimonies which follow pag. 23. 24. c. my Remarks on them are these 1. Some of them I confess seem to speak home to this Author's design and pretend that our Ceremonies ought to be abolish'd but if this Man's Book be fraught with no better Reasons to prove it than those mention'd by him out of the Epistles of Judicious Beza and Learned Zanchy I 'll be bold to say that it is good for little but to prove the Author a very weak Brother 2. He shewed himself too near of kin to such aâ— Brother in pretending pag. 23. That Calvin styl'd our Ceremonies Follies but owning that affirmed them Tolerable Follies and then writing a great Book himself to prove them intolerable But as to that Censure which Calvin is said to pass upon our Ceremonies see Durell's Vindiciae Ecclesiae Anglicanae Cap. 12. where he makes it more than probable That that Censure was not meant of our Ceremonies nor of the English Lyturgy as it wa in it self at that time but as it was knavishly represented to him by the English Sectaries of those days 3. I observe that several of his Testimonies pag. 38. c. seem not to speak of the duty of the Governours of this or that particular Church to bear with and indulge the Members of their own Church in matters indifferent but of the Duty only of one Protestant Church pag. 40. 41. towards another viz. That if both Churches agree in Fundamentals their differences in other matters may be Tolerated pag. 38. 40. The Reformed Churches say the Geneva-Doctors pag. 40. ought to maintain a Brotherly Affection towards one another c. The Protestant-Churches says the Transylvanian pag. 41. are to be mov'd notwithstanding their differences to exercise Moderation Compassion and Mutual Toleration And so the Professors of Aberdeen pag. 42. 43. The possibility of this Exception the Prefacer himself was aware of and therefore endeavours to enervate it pag. 57. by Asking What reason can be given why these conditions of Communion betwixt Reformed Churches should not obtain amongst the Member of the same Christian Church And pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies and Doctrines of inferior moment may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the members of the same Church though disagreeing in like matters As if there where no difference between two Societies neither of which is subject to or dependant upon the other nor have any Governour common to them both and the members of the same Society or several Societies united under and subject to such or such a Governour or Governours Where two Societies are independent one upon another there being no common Governour to take care of Order and the things relating to it among them each of them is left to the management of its respective Governour or Governours and to them the care of the Publick Worship to be perform'd by that Society belongs who therefore ought to see that it be performed in an orderly decent and reverent manner and to constitute such Modes Rites and Ceremonies as they judge most convenient to that End And when they have so done what has any other Church which in the Case suppos'd cannot justly pretend to any superiority over them I say what has such a Church to do to call in question their Constitutions in any Authoritative way I mean And therefore to talk of its being the duty of one Protestant Church to tolerate another that 's Independent upon it and differs from it in matters of outward Order is at least a very improper way of speaking If by tolerating those Testimonies mean only that they should not Censure and Condemn the other Church that so differs from them and if this Writer be of the same mind in this with the Authors of those dictates and if he be not why does he quote them as Testimonies favouring his pretensions then himself ought to pronounce Beza and Zanchy a little too pragmatical in quarrelling the Governours of the Church of England for their thinking fit to retain such and such Ceremonies But what does this Prefacer mean by Conditions of Communion and Preserving Communion in these questions Does it follow that because these Testimonies make it the Duty of one Protestant Church so far to Accord with another that agrees with it in Fundamentals and differs from it only in Rites and Ceremonies or other matters extra-Fundamental as not fastidiously to reject or Anathematise that Church P. 43. on Account of any such difference that therefore they make it the duty of each Church to admit the members of the other Church to all sorts of Communion meerly because they agree in Fundamentals If he fancy that to be their meaning let him instance if he can in any one Protestant Church that will receive others to Sacramental Communion meerly because they hold the Fundamentals of Christian Faith This Man has undertaken to maintain That things Indifferent ought not to be imposed as Conditions of Communion or as Conditions without which none shall partake of the publick Ordinances but does he imagine that if he go to Geneva he shall be admitted to the Communion there without submitting to the Ceremonies of Reception there enjoyn'd in particular that they 'll give it him unless he stands when he receives it I am sure Durell in the foremention'd Vindiciae Cap. 22. where he defends the Church of Englands imposing Kneeling on all Communicants tells us that in that it challenges no greater a Power to it self than other Reformed Churches do pag. 235. And that as the Churches of the Lutheran Confession will give the Communion only to those that Kneel so the French and Geneva Churches will give it to none but such as Stand in the Act of Receiving Whereas therefore this Author would gladly know pag. 58. Why that Agreement in Fundamentals which is sufficient to preserve Communion betwixt Churches disagreeing in Rites and Ceremonies may not be sufficient also to preserve Communion among the Members of the same Church though disagreeing in such Matters I Answer That the Communion which his own Testimonies speak of as preserv'd thereby is only for ought I see that which consists in not Censuring and Anathematising or Disowning them as True Churches though differing in such matters which as it scarce deserves the Name of Communion so 't is too far remov'd from the Nature of that Communion which this Book pleads for to make these Testimonies pertinent to that Plea And whereas he pretends in the same Page that the reason why Christian Churches which do thus differ should be received and owned
certain Grievances imposed upon the Members thereof by the Church of England And 't is the drift of this Man's Preface and Book to load the Church it self with the Burden of this Reproachful Complaint Besides the Opinion which this Prefacer owns as true That the Ceremonies required in the Church of England do bring no Profit but many Evils to the Church is a flat Contradiction to the Doctrin of the 30th Canon touching the Use of the Cross in Baptism viz. That the Christians shortly after the Apostles Time used it in all their Actions thereby making an outward Shew and Profession even to the Astonishment of the Jews that they were not ashamed to Acknowledge Him for their Lord and Saviour who Dyed for them upon the Cross And this Sign they did not only use themselves with a kind of Glory when they met with any Jews but signed therewith their Children when they were Christned to dedicate them by that Badge to His Service whose Benefits bestowed upon them in Baptism the Name of the Cross did represent and this Vse of the Sign of the Cross in Baptism was held in the Primitive Church as well by the Greeks as the Latins with one consent and great applause at what time if any had opposed themselves against it they would certainly have been Censur'd as Enemies of the Name of the Cross and consequently of Christs Merits the sign whereof they could no better endure And what must this Prefacer then be counted who in complyance with Father Beza Father Zanchy and Father Calvin as he pretends Pag. 23. Censur'd this and other Ceremonies as Fooleries and the endeavouring to uphold them as Labouring about Hay and Stubble or rather about things more vain than they and brands them as things bringing no Profit but many Evils to the Church whereas this Canon you see expresly teaches the contrary and tho' it Acknowledges that in process of time the sign of the Cross was greatly abused in the Church of Rome especially after the Corruption of Popery had once possessed it yet withal it affirms that the Abuse of a thing doth not take away the Lawful Vse of it Nay so far was it from the purpose of the Church of England says the Canon to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy France Spain Germany or any such like Churches in all things which they held and practised that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth it doth with reverence retain those Ceremonies which do neither endamage the Church of God nor offend the minds of Sober Men. In which respect among some other very Ancient Ceremonies the sign of the Cross in Baptism hath been retained in the Church For the very remembrance of the Cross which is very precious to all them that rightly Believe in Jesus Christ and in the other respects mention'd the Church of England hath retained still the sign of â—â—…in Baptism following therein the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounting it a Lawful Outward Ceremony and Honourable Badge whereby the Infant is Dedicated to the Service of Him that dy'd upon the Cross In the next place I observe that this Prefacer confesses Pag. 9. that the Bishops themselves have no Power to dispense with the Laws for Uniformity or to make any Proposals for the healing of our Breaches and if they have no such Power I wonder upon what grounds this Author assumes to himself the Power of making such Proposals and such as would destroy the Act of Uniformity and Metamorphose the Common-Prayer-Book into a Directory I know he has produced the Testimony of King James King Charles the First and King Charles the Second to justifie the design of his Book but with how little Reason Candor and Ingenuity he has done it I shall leave you to judge when you have consider'd the reflexions I have to make upon them As to that of K. James it may suffice 1. To remember that notwithstanding that excellent determination as the Prefacer styles it his Majesty was so far from changing or antiquating or so much as dispensing with the Ceremonies of the Church of England that he ratified them anew and gave those Divines who appear'd against them at the Conference at Hampton-Court a Severe Reprimand for scrupling Conformity to them upon such inconsiderable Reasons as were then urg'd for those Scruples and this Establishment he continued all his Reign 2. To take Notice that whereas this Writer calls that which Casaubon represents as K. James his Opinion a golden Sentence and which fully justifies all which he pleads for the words of that Golden Sentence as quoted by himself do only affirm That those things which by the Constitutions of Men without the Word of God were for a time received into the Church of God may be Changed Mollified Antiquated And this too is so far from being there his Majesties peremptory Determination that 't is only said his Majesty Thinks Conceives Believes they may be antiquated Whereas this Writer is not content to think our Church-Constiâ—utions May be but the whole scope of his Book is to prove they Ought to be alter'd and antiquated 3. That which his Majesty is said to Believe does in the quotation refer not to All but only to Most Ecclesiastical Observations and therefore it is not evident from that quotation That our Church-Ceremonial-Observations are in the number of those which the King Conceived might be antiquated For which reasons this first quotation signified little to this Writers purpose supposing it a Candid and Impartial quotation which because I have not that Epistle by me I have not at present the opportunity of examining But if this Prefacer has treated King James in this Testimony no more candidly and ingenuously than he has King Charles in the next he has in plain English play'd the Knave with two Kings For hapning to have the Exact Collections by me I consulted the Kings Answer to that Remonstrance of the State of the Kingdom and there found p. 26. of that Collection immediately after the words by him quoted these following Provided that this Case be attempted and pursued with that modesty temper and submission that in the mean time the Peace and Quiet of the Kingdom be not disturbed the Decency and Comliness of Gods Service discountenanced nor the Pious Sober and Devout Actions of those Reverend Persons who were the first Labourers in the Blessed Reformation scandalised and defamed Which Proviso being added does so cramp and consine the Condescension spoken of in the former words that they are on that account rendred insignificant to the Writers design and so they are upon another For they only say That his Majesty would willingly comply with the Advice of a Parliament for the making a Law to Exempt Tender-Consciences from Punishment or Prosecution but does not say either that 't was the duty of a Parliament to give him such Advice nor that it was his own duty to comply with it when given and yet nothing
as lawful Nay I do not discern what consistency there is between one part of the Preface and another part between the allowing the fore-mentioned mutations as reasonable and necessary Pag. 82. and 93. and this passage Pag. 89. which implies they are neither necessary nor reasonable For there he says we do heartily and sincerely desire Vnion with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it if any Expedient can be found out for the Ease of other mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without Reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no True Son of the Church of England will oppose it Now whether the fore-mention'd dispensings with and Retrenchments of our Church-Orders and Practices upon the fore-mention'd Reason and Argument for the sake of Union with them whom he is pleas'd to call Brethren be not so far a giving up the Cause of the Church as to condemn its Constitution and to make the Ceremonies unlawful which have hitherto been observed and practised in it I leave you to judge as also whether the taking in Dissenters upon such Terms will not necessarily reflect reproach and dishonour upon the Reformation of that Church which at her first Reforming thought fit to retain and impose those Constitutions and Ceremonies as just and reasonable and as such hath ever since continu'd them without imagining that continu'd Imposition inconsistent with Christian Wisdom or with any regard that 's justly due to the Scruples and Exceptions of troublesome men relating to the Administration of Sacraments in a Christian Church To which troublesome Men the Dr. is pleased to give the Title of Brethren more than once in the later end of the Preface which is it self in my Opinion too absurd a contradiction to that Book whose main design is to prove them Schismaticks He tells us Pag. 364. That 't was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to Practice than were made so at the Settlement of the 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 says he take upon me here to determin And I wish he had not taken it upon him in the Preface especially to determin it so much to the Reproach and Dishonour of our Church as to imply she hath hitherto been guilty of Transgressing the Obligation of Christianity in not making those Alterations for the sake of Union with such Persons whose Scruples are groundless and endless and which as himself Affirms p. 372. might be remov'd by a little Impartiality and â—lue consideration there being no depth of Learning no subtilty of Reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about them but the dispute lies in such a narrow compass that men may see light if they will And why ours or indeed any Church should be Reproached as Defective in Christian Wisdom for not complying with such humersom Persons or not altering her Constitutions for the sake of such wilfully blind and perverse Dissenters I confess I do nor understand Now these Premises being duly consider'd do I think abundantly justifie the first charge and make it too reasonable to adhere to this conclusion that the Doctors Preface hath destroyed what he had said for our Church in his Book And in reference to the other charge that the Preface has effectually destroy'd that Church of England which the Doctor had taken pains to defend in his Book The same premises do really contribute so much to the making it good that for ought I see no more need to be added to that End than the bare application of them to that Censure and to the Doctor 's own Notion of the Church of England For he asserts p. 249. of his Book that the National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are Establish'd by the Laws of this Realm And Pag. 302. All Bishops Ministers and People taken together who profess the Faith so Establish'd and worship God according to the Rules so Appointed make up this National Church of England And this is the Church of England which the Doctor has taken pains to defend in his Book If therefore the Church of England takes its denomination not only from the Profession of that Faith but also from its consent in Worshipping God according to such and such Rules he that would destroy those Rules will consequently destroy that Church which is denominated such and diversified from other Churches by its embracing and adhering to those Rules But it appears from the premises that the Doctor 's Preface would have several considerable Alterations made of those Rules and that upon such an account and for such reasons as do consequentially destroy that Order and those Rules of Worship that are Established by Law and therefore that Preface does effectually destroy that Church of England which he had taken pains to defend in his Book These are all the things says the Dr. which appear to me reasonable to be Allowed in order to an Vnion and which I suppose may be Granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church And says this Writer these are all I plead for in this Book But 1. there is this little difference between these Authors The Reverend Dean supposes they may be Granted but this Author endeavours to prove they ought to be Granted 2. Though that Author mentions only such and such things as appearing to him reasonable to be Allowed yet to make them appear so to others he urges an Argument which will infer it as reasonable to dispense with a great many other things not mention'd And so though this Author pretends that these are all he pleads for in his Book yet the Arguments he makes use of if they prove any thing prove it the duty of our Governours to dispense with a great many more Constitutions even all that enjoyn any Indifferents whereby our Brother is offended Chap. 3. And therefore whereas he adds here As for those who deny the lawfulness of Lyturgy and the right Constitution of our Churches and who would be exempted from the Jurisdiction of their Bishop and set up Congregations separate and independent upon him I know not how to plead for them without pleading for Schism Confusion and Disorder I doubt his Arguments will if they prove any thing prove it as unlawful for Governours to impose a Lyturgy and require Obedience to Episcopal Government as to impose Ceremonies For I am confident he is very sensible that a great many whom he seemed to account weak Brethren are mightily offended