too p. 287. By that Rule whosoever regulates his Life and Doctrine or Belief I am confident that though he may mistake Error for Truth in the way he shall never mistake Hell for Heaven in the End And yet further should you not consider whether it be not more agreeable to the Revealed Will and Mind of Christ that you should suffer some Taâ—es to grow rather than pluck up good Corn with them Reverend Sir It having so happened that poor I have been called out among others an hundred times fitter to shew my Opinion touching the Matter you have started I cannot but think as I here declare so far as my Judgment serves you might have employed your Time your Learning and Parts to much better purpose than you have done in this late Piece of Work Surely my Life would be but sad to me if I could not find more pleasing Work than this that you have been an Occasion of engaging me in And yet I hope to have more Comfort in it at the great day of Accounts than I can conceive you to have of yours in that Day If you lay the Vnity â—f Christians upon Conformity too or Vniformity in doubtful and suspected if not unlawful Practices a general Vnion can never be had or hoped for If you would make the way to Heaven narower than Christ has left it many will be forced to leave you here But now if you would henceforth propose and promote an Vnion amongst Christians uâ—on Catholick Ierms we are for you and would heartily joyn with you And as that most learned and pious Bishop Vsher Serm. of Vnivers of the Church and Vnity of Faith p. 43 44. If at this dâ—y we should take a Survey of the several Professions of Christianity that have any large Spread in any part of the World and should put by the Points wher in they did differ one from another and gather into one Body the rest of the Articles wherein they all did generally agree we should find that in thâ—se Propositions which without all Controversy are universally received in the whole Christian World so much truth is contained as being joyned with holy Obedience may be sufficient to bring a Man unto everlasting Salvation Neither have â—e cause to doubt but that as many as do walk according to this Rule Peâ—â—e shalâ— be upon them and Mercy and upon the Israel of God Now thereâ—orâ— do as he says ibid. p. 18. We for our parts dare not abridg this Graâ—t and limit this great Lordship as we conceive it may best fit our own turns but â—â—ave it to his own Latitude and seek for the Catholick Church neither in this Part nor in that Pâ—ece but among all that in every place call upon the Nâ—mâ— of Jesus Christ our Lord both theirs and ours And if a Zeal for such a general Comprehension and happy Vnion of Christians will to use the Words of Mr. de L' Angâ—e p. 424. briâ—g down a thousand Blessings of Heaven and Earth upon those that shall contribute the most unto it resolve now and hence forward to put forth your self this â—ay Put in for your share of Blessings I remember I concluded my former writing with a Collect borrowed from you Here I would say Amen to that Prayer with which Dr. Potter shuts up his Answer to Charity mistaken That it would please the Father of Mercies to take away out of his Church all Dissention and Discord all Heresies and Schisms all Abuses and false Doctrines all Idolatry Superstition and Tyranny and to unite all Christians in one holy Bond of Truth and Peace Faith and Charity that so with one Mind and one Mouth we may all joyn in his Service I add no more but that the Father of Lights would so direct your Studies and Course that you may do nothing against the Truth but for the Truth which is the Prayer of Reverend Sir Your humble and faithful Servant Iohn Barrett I more wish than hope that of these sad Controversies here will be The END Proper Materials drawn from the true and only way of Concord c. QUERY 1. WHether the Apostle Paul hath not clearly and fully decided the case against censuring or despising one another for things Indifferent Rom. 14 15. And if Men wiâ—â— not understand nor stand to that Decision whether it should be any wonder if they will not understand or be satisfied with our most cogent Arguments Second Plea for Peace p. 169. § 75. Whether they that say the Apostle doth not forbid such Impositions there can see Day for Light 1. Doth he not forbid censuring despising and not receiving one another and command Dissenters to receive one another And then must he not forbid such Imposition as is inconsistent herewith 2. Doth he not direct this Command to all the Church of Rome even to the authorized Pastors and Rulers of the Church as well as to the People 3. Was he not a Pastor and Ruler of that Church as fully authorized as any that should succeed 4. Is not this Scripture as others written for a standing Rule and so obligatory to Rulers still ib. p. 170. § 77. Did not the Apostle speak here by Divine Authority Are not his Words recorded here part of Christ's Law indited by the Spirit And may we think that any that come after him or to whom he wrote should have power to contradict or obliterate the same Way of Concord p. 152. 5. Do not his Reasons touch the case of all Churches in all Ages and not only some particular Persons and Case As he argueth from the difference betwixt well-meaning Christians as weak and strong as doubting and as assured as mistaken and as in the right c. If such weak mistaken Christians in such matters ever have been and ever will be in the Church upon Earth doth not the reason from their case and necessity still hold 6. How many great and pressing moral Reasons that all Christians are bound by are heaped up here Does he not argue 1. From Christian love to Brethren 2. From human Compassion to the Weak 3. From God's own Example who receiveth such whom therefore we must not reject 4. From God's Prerogative to judg and our having no such judging power in such cases 5. From God's Propriety in his own Servants 6. From God's Love and Mercy that will uphold such 7. Because what Men do as to please God must not be condemned without necessity but an holy Intention cherished so it be not in forbidden things 8. Because Men must not go against Conscience in indifferent things 9. From Christ's dreadful Judgment which is near and which we our selves must undergo 10. From the Sin of laying Stumbling-blocks and occasions of Offence 11. From the danger of crossing the end of Christ's Death destroying Souls for whom he died 12. Because it will make our Good to be ill spoken of 13. Because the Kingdom of God or Constitution of Christianity and the Church lieth in
is certainly Superior to that of the greatest Bishops and Councils that ever were described the Office and how Persons are to be qualified for it And when such have been called to the Office while they give no just Cause for Suspension and Degradation Christ looks on them as his Ministers still and accordingly his Will is that Men own them as such And they that despise them may therein â— in a Degree be guilty of despising Christ. Chemnitius Loc. com par 3. p. 136. col 1. speaks fully to the purpose thus As God alone properly claims to himself the Right of Calling even when the Call is mediate so also properly it belongs to God â—o remove one from the Ministry Therefore so long as God suffers in the Ministry his Servant teaching rightly and living blamelesly Ecclesia non habet Potestatem alienum Servum amovendi The Church hath no Power Authority of putting away another's Servant But when be no further edifies either by his Doctrine or Life but destroys the Church then God himself removes him 3. If what you have said formerly remark'd in Rector of Sutton p. 29. hold true and you have not hitherto disproved the same then you must yield the present Non-conformist Ministers have not been suspended and cast out for any just Cause And may I not also add If Clement say true as you cite him here Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 314 315. Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith wel-pleased discharging their Office with Humility Quietness Readiness and Unblameableness and being Men of a long time of good Report we think such Men cannot justly be cast out of their Office Though in the heat of Disputation your Opinion seems to be changed of Persons as well as Things yet I hope in cool Blood you would not deny but such a Character agrees to many Non-conformists that you should think they cannot justly be cast out of Office And I doubt not but you are well acqainted with that old Canon That no Bishop or Priest should be taken into another's Place if the former were blameless 4. If still they are in Office as Ministers of Christ are they not obliged to serve him in that Office as they have a Call and Opportunity See again Rector of Sutton pag. 29 34 75. They must not neglect the Gift that is in them Sad was the Doom of the vnprofitable Servant that buried his Talent The Teacher must wait on Teaching I suppose all Christ's Ministers are concerned in that solemn Charge 2. Tim. 4. 1 2. And they are to take heed to the Ministry which they have received even though Men forbid them You abhor and detest such Principles as to set Man's Laws above God's Laws And though they be threatned with Persecution for it when they are persecuted in one City they may flee to another Mat. 10. 23. Yet must they not run away from their Work but be carrying that on in other Places where they come according to their Ability and Opportunity Prudence directed them Ioh. 20. 19. to meet privately there at Evening keeping the Door shut for fear of the Jews yet meet they would If Ministers be driven from their former Flocks yet are they Men in Office and preach as such not only as gifted Men in what other place soever God by his Providence calls them to bestow their Pains They are Teachers by Office to more than their proper Charges even to as many as they have a Providential Call hic nunc to preach unto So it appears Men cannot lawfully silence Christ's Ministers without just Cause or if they do that such Decree and Sentence does not oblige Conscience I have it from Mr. B. Church History p. 446 447. The Dominican Inquisitor that reasoned the matter with the Bohemians would have silenced excommunicated Priests bound to cease preaching but had the wit to add if silenced for a reasonable Cause and to confess Sententia injuste lata à suo judice si Errorem inducat vel Peccatum mortale afferet nec timenda est nec tenenda The old Bohemian Reformers held as Ibid. p. 446. Every Priest and Deacon is bound to preach God's Word freely or he sinneth mortally and after Ordination he should not cease no not when excommunicated because he must obey God rather than Man I see in Carranza fol. 437. It was one of the Articles for which the Council of Constance sentenced I. Wickliffe's Bones to be digg'd up and burnt Art 13. They that leave off to preach or hear God's Word for Men's Excommunication are excommunicate And you that have greater store of Authors and choice Books then such as I must ever hope to have the Advantage ofâ— you I say I doubt not have what others add they are excommunicate and in the day of Iudgment shall be judged Traitors to Christ. And these were among the Articles for which I. Husse was condemned Carranza â—ol 440. Art 17 18. A Priest of Christ living according to his Law and having the Knowledg of the Scripture and a working to edify the People ought to preach notwithstanding any pretended Excommunication And every one that comes to the Office of a Priâ—st hath a Command to preach and ought to obey that Command notwithstanding Excommunication And these you know were before our oldest Non-conformists 5. But now Sir that I may come home to you If Ministers were bound to cease preaching to lay aside their Ministry when silenced unjustly then at what a miserable Loss might the Church be left And if you could scarce satisfy your selves to see her at such a loss we may very well hope Christ would not have her left at such a Loss His care of his Church no doubt is greater than yours would be Because you seem not to take any notice of what I said Rect. of Sutton p. 28. give me leave here to mind you of it again What a woful Case the Church was in if she might be deprived of all or the greatest and soundest part of her Ministers at Man's pleasure And further pag. 43. I put a Case shewing that if what you would have be admitted it might fare a great deal the worse with the Church under Orthodox Bishops and Governours than if they were grand Hereticks But to come to the Point I aim at You know when almost two thousand Ministers were cut off from their publick Ministerial Work as it were in one day by a Law of Conformity Now let us suppose the Minds of Rulers to change which is not naturally impossible and put the case that your Conformity should be made as great a Crime as Non-conformity hath been and yet the true Religion acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned as you say here pag. 148. â— 6. Though I find Mr. Phil. Nye who is a very considerable Person with you Preface p. 27. In his Beams of Light pag. 192. saying Let the same Impositions and Penalties be
limiting and inclosing the Catholick Church and if any disturb the Peace of this Church and here you do not 〈◊〉 the most peaceable Dissenters that only meet for the Worship of God and separate no farther from your Church than as it is not Catholick you go on The Civil Magistrate may justly inflict Civil Penalties upon them for it Is this your Mind that all that submit not tâ— those new federal Rites as they are supposed and teaching Signs and Symbols spoken of should be both debarred of Church-Priviledges and laid under Civil Penalties as disturbers of thâ— Churches Pâ—ace Then I cannot but wish that Governours may have more Moderation and Clemency or poor Dissenters more Faith and Patience than you shew Christian Charity herein But if they are as near the Primitive Church and as much in Communion with the Catholick Church as you are yea and in Communion with you still so sar as you are Catholick what great reason can you have so severely to condemn them I hope the Doctrine of the Non-conformists generally is sound their Worship agreeable to the Word The only Question then remaining seems to be By what Authority they do these things And who gave them Authority Now it is true they cannot pretend Authority from the Bishops but if they can prove they have Authority from Christ is not that sufficient If he hath called them to the work of the Ministry and commandeth them to be diligent and faithful in it according to their Abilities and Opportunities me thâ—nks Men should not deny their Authority And whether may not such Societies as you call nâ—w Churches return what you cite p. 179 180. out of Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n 9. as proving them to be true Churches They having the Word of God truly preached and Sacraments administred accâ—rding to Christ's Institution Now he saith as you have him where ever thâ—se Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to Humane Conveniences And therefore if you did not look only on one side you might probably see that you are no more allowed wilfully to separate from them than they are from you And as that Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared as you have it p. 186. That there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own Opinions or Practices So why might not the Non-conformists and their Hearers be taken into or acknowledged in Communion with the Church of England without renouncing their Opinions or Practices they being certainly as far from Idolatry or Superstition as any of the Lutheran Churches As the Helvetian Churches with you p. 187 declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him Even so because the Non-Conformists consent with you in Doctrine do not break them off from your Communion for their difference about Ceremonies May not several Churches differ in Modes and Forms of Worship and yet have Communion with one another Some Difference you cannot but grant betwixt your Cathedral Service and that in common Country Churches p. 146 147. You will not say the Churches in other Nations that have not the same Rule with you are Schismaticks No not though such came over into England and lived among you And what if the old Liturgy and that new one which you cannot but remember the compiling of and presenting to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used different Modes of Worship without Breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks Would you have called those new separate Churches that made use of the new reformed Liturgy And what if a Dutch Church was in your Parish Would you disclaim Communion with them because they had some Rules and Orders different from yours And what if divers of your Parish living near it should joyn with that Congregation would you thence conclude that they erected a new separate Church And as the Canon 1640. speaks of bowing towards the East or Altar That they which use this Rite should not despise them which use it not c. if now our King and Parliament like true Catholick Moderators should put forth an Henoticum make an healing Law enjoyning Conformists and Non-conformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for Substance to attend peacably on their Ministery and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Liturgy and Ceremonies or no without uncharitable Censures and bitter Reflections upon one another either in Word or Writing would you yet say that the Non-conformists Assemblies not following your Rules and Orders were no other than new separate Churches 5. I know no Laws nor Ecclesiastical Canons that the present Non-conformists have made And non-entis nulla sunt praedicata But if your meaning be that it is enough to prove them New Churches that they come not up to your Laws and Church-Rules and therefore are so 〈…〉 as they conform not to you I would argue thus Either Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary to Communion with the Church of England and to cut off the charge of being of a New â—hurch or not If Conformity in all things be not necessary here why may not sober Dissenters that own the Church of England for a true Church and profess the same Faith and worship God in no other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England as you say p. 160. Mr. B. declared in writing and as I told you a good Lawyer pleadeth Rector of Sutton p. 26 50. I say why may not such be owned as in Communion with the Church of England Why do you charge them with erecting new separate Churches meerly because they differ from you in some alterable Circumstances and separable Accidents not necessary to Churches Concord and Communion I see you dare not say that those things wherein they differ from you are any parts of Worship So they are of the same Faith and agree with you in all parts of Worship And is not all this with their owning themselves to be be of the Church of England so far as it is Catholick a bidding fair for your Reception of them and acknowledging them still in Communion with you And then why have you so many words of such being no good Christians because Members of no Church as pag. 104 105 110. f. If Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be not necessary pray tell us what is necessary and what not what things may be dispensed with and what not Rector of
one is bound to submit to the Determination of such what ever his private Judgment be 1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God 2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency 3. And wholly as to the Form of Government This I think you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters and how material to give them Satisfaction will appear by examining the several Parts But first it is worth nothing that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Implying that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers such as are not lawful Governours of the Church Then so far you and they may be agreed that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch c. in England Men were not bound to submit to their Determination till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman p. 305. and others and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations as lawful Governours of the Church those who neverwere chosen or approved by the People is another Question But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine you tell us 1. Every one is bound to submit to their Determination As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God Here 1. You should have told us whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches or only such Ancient Churches as those of the fourth or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal and got the upper Ground In Defence of the Right of Kings p. 398. where the Cardinal arguing that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years was not to be condemned His Majesty replied In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession that in the first five hundred Years the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith nor approved by Practice VVherein to my understanding the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit for the Church in the time of the Apostles their Disciples was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge than at any time since in any succeeding Age in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant whether all or only some of them And if but some whether those that only took the Scripture as their Rule in reforming or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches together with it 2. What are those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God besides matters of meer Order and Decency and what relates to Form of Government 3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule When you grant the Church may err and general Councils may err may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word that are not sâ— left Chillingworth grants there may be just and necâ—ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cathâ—lick Church p. 298. And you say partly the same in your Rational Account pag. 331 332. Those Errors in practice in the Judgment of the Church may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word when yet others are not bound to submit to them You tell us Rational Account p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by it is most senslâ—ss pleading Prescription till you have particularly examined how far such Prescription is allowed by him So then it is not enough to say in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law and the Church hath Power to determine them But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on p. 628. It may be you will tell me that in this Case Prescription interprets Law and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side since you run your self into new Briars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the Practice here I must say by the Iudgment of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived 4. Is this a plain or rather is it not an Impossible Rule If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches as to those things We should think it well if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty but according to what you have here laid down this should not be sufficient but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law Or will you say that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches they must believe without more adoe Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours till such time as they can be satisfied that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches Will you give them time till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches 5. Is this a golden rather is it not a leaden Rule May it not be turned contrary ways Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving Were
esse â—isi verbo Dei And then it would be seriously enquired whether to require Assent and Consent to another Book besides the Bible a Book in Folio and to all things contained in it be not to have Dominion over Mens Faith Many are in doubt here whose doubts you have not so far as I can perceive yet resolved You your self must grant that the Churches of God have or should have no such Custom to tyrannize over the Faith and Consciences of Men that is Lording it indeed As here Vnreas of Separat p. 184. You cite M. Claude allowing or maintaining Tyranny over Mens Consciences to be a justifiable Reason of Sâ—paration And Le Blanc p. 185. And the Confession of Strasburg p. 188. That they look on no human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men. And Ioâ— Crocius ib. Ceremonies forbidden break the Churches Unity yet its Communion is not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. And Bishop Davenâ—nt p. 189 190. Who grants that Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences would be a sâ—fficient Reason to hinder Communion As he says Sentent D. Dav. p. 6. If some one Church will so have Dominion over the Faith of others that she acknowledgeth none for Brethren or admits none into Communion with her nisi credendâ— ac loquendi legem ab eadem prius accipiant the Holy Scripture forbids us thus to make our selves the Slaves of any Mortals whosoever they are our one only Master Christ forbids Quae hâc lege in Communionem alterius Ecclesiae recipitur non pacem inde acquirit sed iniquissimae servitutis pactionem Here I set down a little more than you cite as indeed it was not for your purpose To these you agree P. 221. Not but that I think there may be a Separation without Sin from a Society retaining the Essentials of a Church but then I say the Reason of such Separation is some heinous Error in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some Tyranny over the Consciences of Men c. This Tyranny over Conscience with you is an imposing of unlawful things Which I infer from those Words p. 208. A prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation With Bishop Davenant it is credendi ac loquendi legem dicere Now if this be the Case of Non-conformist Ministers that others would tyrannize over their Consciences will it not justify their Separation which is but a Separation secundum quid And if you deny this to be their Case be pleased to give a sound and solid Answer to those few Pages of the second Plea for Peace towards the end p. 116 c. Qui tyrannidem in Christianissimum vel usurpat vel invehit ille Christum quantum potest ê solio dejicit c. Amyrald in Thes. Salmur p. 435. §22 8. Will you say every Man is bound for Peace-sake to submit to the Determination of Church-Governours whatever his private Iudgment may be When his Judgment may be that such a Determination is against the Word tho never so many Churches and Councils judg otherwise And when his Judgment may be that submission to such Determination of Men would be real Disobedience and acting contrary to the Will of God If his Conscience be rightly informed then he opposeth the Authority of Scripture and the Iudgment of God to the Iudgment of Men as Chillingworth says p. 309. which is certainly allowable If his Conscience and Judgment be erroneous yet he must suspend the act of Submission to such Determination till he can be better informed or acting here against his Iudgment and Conscience tho erroneous he would greatly sin As suppose the Governours of the Church to have determined that we shall all declare our Assent unto that in Preface before the Book of Ordination That it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and Ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons as several Officers You could not have submitted to such Determination while your Judgment was the same as when you wrote your Irenicum This is evident from what I noted thence Rector of Sutton p. 41 66. Nothing can be more evident than that it rose not from any divine Institution c. Could you have dissembled with God and Man for Peace-sake But more of this afterwards But I am thinking you may possibly object That you speak of things supposed to be left undetermin'd whereas I Instance here in a matter that the Word determines Yet I hope this may be more convincing Let us for this once suppose that you could now prove from Scripture that the Bishops Office is distinct from that of Presbyters yet I hope you will grant me that you could not have submitted to such Determination of the Church while you believed no such thing And then I have what I would have Every Man cannot lawfully submit to the Churches Determination though it be according to the Scripture that is so long as his Judgment is the Determination is without and against Scripture then must not the same be said of such Determination as is besides the Scripture I know you will not say the Churches Word is above God's So you see how this part of your Rule falls short of what you aim at One thing you have under this Rule Irenic p. 124. I should take a little notice of some-where and let me do it here There must be a Difference made say you between the Liberty and Freedom of a Man 's own Judgment and the Authority of it So by being under Governours a Man parts with the Authority of his Iudgment but you would not have him deprived of the Liberty and Freedom of his Judgment otherwise to what purpose is this distinction brought Now I would not be so uncharitable as to think that by the Liberty of a Man 's own Iudgment you could mean a Liberty of professing and declaring contrary to his own Judgment in Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours for the Churches Peace And therefore I say your Rule here is short and reacheth not to our Case 2. You say in this last Conclusion that in Mâ—tters of meer Order and Decency every one for the Churches Peace is bound to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Here 1. This is readily granted if by Matters of meer Order and Decency you understand Matters of meer Order and Decency As you seemed to understand no more when you wrote your Iren. For there you distinguish betwixt Ceremonies and Matters of meer Decency and Order for Order-sake And you further say that Matters of Order and Decency are allowable and fitting but Ceremonies properly taken for Actions significative their Lawfulness may with better Ground
be scrupled Noted Rector of Sutton pag. 16. And thus far if you please you and I are agreed That Rules of Order not contrary to the end of Order should be submitted unto and that not only for the Churches Peace but also in Obedience to God's Command Let all things be done decently and in order And to such orderly Determinations what Camero says pag. 314. col 1. may in some sort be applied Admonitiones quidem sunt respectu Ecclesiae at Leges respectu Dei nempe hâc Ratione quod commendavit Ecclesia Deus impâ—ravit 2. But I observe that in other Writings since your mind is changed and you have learned now to confound what before you would have distinguished that is your Rites and Ceremonies and Matters of Order and Decency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. So you say in your New Account or Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 393. We declare that they are appointed only for Order and Decency And thus now these become meer Matters of Order and Decency with you Of which there hath been and is so great dispute Here two or three Questions come in for your Solution 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the use of such Matters 3. Whether every one is bound to submit to them upon such Determination I intend not to say much upon these Questions supposing they may fall in others Way And but that you seem too resolved to hold your own Conclusion so much hath been written upon these Points that might excuse us from saying more till what hath been published be fairly answered Question 1. Whether such Rites and Ceremonies are Matters of meer Order and Decency 1. You say and declare they are appointed only for Order and Decency But not as if the contrary implied a natural Indecency as was noted Rector of Sutton p. 63. whereupon it follows that you must hold them vainly appointed or that the contrary might as well have been appointed and so teach or tempt People to have hard Thoughts of the Governours of the Church for appointing and so rigorously imposing such Ceremonies whereby many are deprived of their Ministers and of some of God's Ordinances which may seem very harsh if they are only for Order and Decency and that in so low a Degree that the Worship of God might be as orderly and decently performed without them Would you have the Governours of the Church deprive Ministers of their Liberty and others of the Sacraments for no other Cause than their meer Wills 2. Do you well accord here with Mr. R. Hooker who says Our Lord himself did that which Custom and long-usage had made fit we that which Fitness and great Decency hath made usual You seemed Answer to several Treatises p. 268. unwilling that any should urge you with that Scil. Then the Apostle's way of Worship was not not in it self altogether so decent and fitâ— But if the Ceremonies be in themselves of such an indifferent Nature that the contrary implieth no Indecency then you cannot say that their great Decency and Fitness was the Ground of appointing and using them Wherein you and Mr. Hooker appear to be of different Minds And kneeling at Communions with him l. 5. § 68. p. 366. is a Gesture of Piety which is something more than meer Decency 3. Do you well accord here with the Governours of the Church You declare our Ceremonies are appointed only for Order and Decency Whereas they have declared them to be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and Sacraments And that they are apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God by some notable and special Signification whereby he might be edified Will you say such things are only for Order and Decency which are for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for stirring up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty to God and for his Edification One would think that such things should be good in themselves and not as you say of an indifferent Nature in themselves Can you imagine things that are only for Order and Decency whose contrary are as decent to be the same or as good as things for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries c. And if a Ceremony be apt to stir up the dull mind of Man to the Remembrance of his Duty whereby he may be edified then is it not made medium excitans which you say Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 354. our Church utterly denies Is here no spiritual Effect attributed to Ceremonies which you can by no means allow pag. 347. But this you are commonly driven to in Disputation to say they are only Matters of Order and Decency and so would bring them under that Rule or Precept Let all things be done decently and in Order tho they are things of a quite different Nature Matters of Order and Decency are there commanded in genere but it would be no Transgression of that Command though not one of these Ceremonies were appointed or used in the Worship of God nor any others like them Quest. 2. Whether the Governours of the Church have Power to appoint and determine the Use of such Ceremonies Here 1. You say pag. 347. If Men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual Effects it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship And then the Question is whether these are no spiritual Effects if they be for the due Reverence of Christ's holy Mysteries and for Men ' s Edification And as Dr. Field says they are adhibited to exercise great Fervour and Devotion And Hooker Men are edified by Ceremonies when either their Vnderstandings are taught somewhat whereof in such Actions it behooveth all Men to consider or when their minds are stirred up to that Reverence Devotion and due Regard which in those Cases seemeth requisite If you makâ— them unprofitable idle Indifferents are not such things unworthy of the Churches Appointment and if others make them profitable edifying Ceremonies have you not here denied that the Church hath so great Power of her self to appoint such 2. If Church-Governours have Power that is lawful Power or Authority from Christ to appoint and command the Use of such Ceremonies then they can shew so much Power granted them in their Commission or prove it from the written Law of Christ. Here I remember what you say Rational Account p. 103. Is it in that Place where he bids the Apostles to teach all that he commanded them that he gives Power to the Church to teach more than he commanded And a little before it what hath he commanded her to do to add to his Doctrine by making things necessary which he never made to be so Surely you cannot think the Church hath any such Power In all kind of
Ordinance and that now they do only claim Superiority from her Majesties Supream Government If this be true then it is requisite and necessary that my Lord of Canterbury do recant and retract his Saying in his Book of the great Volumn against Cartwright where he saith in plain Words by the Name of Dr. Whitgift that the Superiority of Bishops is of God's own Institution which Saying doth impugn her Majesties Supream Government directly and therefore it is to be retracted plainly and truly And I find something like this in that small Tract called English Puritanism c. 6. § 6. They â—old that all Arch-Bishops Bishâ—ps Deans Officials c. have their Offices and Functions only by Will and Pleasure of the King and Civil States of this Realm and they hold that whosoever holdeth that the King may not without Sin remove these Offices out of the Church or 〈◊〉 these Offices are Jure divino and not only or meerly Jure humano That all such deny a principal Part of the King's Supremacy which indeed you must hold as to Bishops if you can prove them an Apostolical Institution Though I know the time when you was of another mind Rector of Sutton p. 41. Will not all these things make it seem very improbable that it should be an Apostolical Institution And pag. 40. you believed that upon the strictest Enquiry it would be â—ound true that Ierome Austin Ambrose Sedulius Primasius Theodoret Theophylact were all for the Identity of both Name and Order of Bishops and â—reâ—byters in the Primitive Church Now suppose the Civil Governours should determine the Government by Bishops as superiour to the rest of the Clergy to be only jure humano that they had Power to alter if they pleased and should require Assent to this their Determination and the Ecclesiasticks on the other hand should be of your mind resolving not to give up the Cause of the Church or disown its Constitution and should determine it to be Iure Divino vel Apostolico and to be owned of Men as such In such a Case whether must the former for the Churches Peace think themselves bound to submit to the Determinations of the latter Or to which of their Determinations must others submit For none but such as the Vicar of Bray could submit to both Thus I have gone over your three Conclusions which you seem to make great account of What great Service they are like to do you let the Impartial Reader judg Instead of my third Conclusion I would offer to Consideration Chap. 26 of Corbet's Kingdom of God among Men. of Submission to Things imposed by lawful Authority p. 171 c. Particularly pag. 173. Though the Ruler be Iudg of what Rules he is to prescribe yet the Conscience of every Subject is to judg with a Iudgment of Discretion whether those Rules be agreeable to the Word of God or not and so whether his Conformity thereto be lawful or unlawful Otherwise he must act upon blind Obedience c. with what follows in that Page And pag. 174. It is much easier for Rulers to relax the strictness of many Injunctions about matters of supposed Convenience than for Subjects to be inlarged from the strictness of their Iudgment And blessed are they that consider Conscience and load it not with needless Burdens but seek to relieve it in its Distresses You go on with me Preface p. 74 But he urges another Passage in the same Place viz. That if others cast them wholly out of Communion their Separation is necessary That is no more than hath been always said by our Divines in respect to the Church of Rome But will not this equally hold against our Church if it excommunicates those who cannot conform Now may not it be said here as Rational Account p. 336. beginning They did not voluntarily forsake the Communion of your Church and therefore are no Schismaticks but your Carriage and Practices were 〈…〉 them to joyn together in a distinct Communion from you And may not your own Words ibid. p. 356 be returned Scil. That by your own Confession the present Division and Separation lies at your door if it be not made evident that there were most just and sufficient Reasons for your casting them out of your Communion And supposing any Church though pretending to be never so Catholick doth restrain her Communion within such narrow and unjust Bounds that she declares such excommunicate who do not approve all such Errors in Doctrine and Corruptions in practice which the Communion of such a Church may be liable to the cause of that Division which follows falls upon that Church which exacts those Conditions c. Here it is to be noted that your own Words Irenic p. 123 124. objected against you Rector of Sutton pag. 30. are as follow This Scil. entring into a distinct Society for Worship I do not assert to be therefore lawful because some things are required which Men's Consciences are unsatisfied in unless others proceed to eject and cast them wholly out of Communion on that account in which Case their Separation is necessary Whence I inferred that if Ministers be wrongfully ejected and wholly cast out of their publick Ministry for such things as their Consciences are not satisfied in for not conforming in unlawful or suspected Practices it becomes necessary for them to have distinct Assemblies in this case at least if there be need of their Ministry Yet I cannot find that you have one word in Answer to this That one would think either you knew not well what to say to the Case of the ejected Non-conformists or that they were so very despicable in your Eye you thought them not worth taking notice of at all Now to your Answers 1. Our church doth not cast any wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity in some particular Rites Yet whatever you say here I doubt a Man though he hath his Child lawfully baptized is not secured from the Sentence of Excommunication if he bring it not to the Church to be crossed And though a Man would joyn in the Communion yet if he be not satisfied to receive the Sacrament kneeling by the Rules of the Church he is to be debarred from the Sacrament and then liable to Excommunication for not receiving And being once excommunicated I would know what parts of publick Worship the Church allows him to communicate in Thus there seems to be little more than a Colour and Pretence in this first Answer if the Rules of the Church be followed But you further say Preface p. 74 75. 2. The Case is vastly different as to the necessity of our Separation upon being wholly cast out of Communion by the Church of Rome and the necessity of others separating from us supposing a general Excommunication ipso facto against those who publickly defame the Orders of the Church In the Church of Rome we are cast out with an Anathema Now 1. If there be a necessity of our Separation
it concerns not me to descant on the whole but especially to enquire and observe whether it be not as I said Or as Calvin wrote to Dr. Cox and his Brethren Ep. 165. as you have it not far from the beginning of your Book p. 12. That the state of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him write with greater sharâ—â—â—ess than otherwise he would have done I think we shall see it plain That either they had not the true state of our Case laid before them or if they had then they wrote very much besides it I suppose their Letters here faithfully translated The First Letter is from Monsieur Le Moyne THo I find a Letter of the same Persons formerly published wherein it is said he thought himself abused sundry Passages in his Letter moderating and regulating the Episcopal Power being left out Bâ—â—as Vapul p. 80 81. Yet I must not suppose any such thing here unless I could prove it But from what is here published P. 404. I could not have persuaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a Man could not be of her Communion without hazarding his own Salvation It is a very strange thing to see them come to that Extream as to believe that a Man cannot be saved in the Church of England And p. 408. Is it not horrible Impudence to excommunicate her without Mercy for them to imagine that they are the only Men in England that hold the Truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held From hence is it not plain now that either he understood not the matter of difference betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists or else did here forget it Had M. Le Moyne consulted and perused your Sermon which possibly was the Occasion of those Writings that M. de L' Angle seems to condemn unseen p. 420 423. had he only read what you say p. 21. I will not make the Difference wider than it is 1. They unanimously confess they find no Fault with the Doctrine of our Church and can freely subscribe to all the Doctrinal Articles Well then the case is vastly different as to their Separation from us and our Separation from the Church of Rome 2. They generally yield That our Parochial Churches are true Churches They do not deny That we have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments 3. Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful Or had he seen what you write here p. 95. how all your Answerers agree with you in the Doctrine of the Church of England and as Dr. Owen says we are firmly united with you in Confession of the same Faith had these things been in his Eye surely he could not have written at this Rate as if we thought we were the only Men in England that held the Truths necessary to Salvation So I leave you your self to judg whether M. Le Moyne goes not upon a great Mistake Sure I am that either he or you have greatly misrepresented us as every ordinary Capacity by comparing what I have here set down may readily discern If what he says of us here be true what you say must needs be false Now I do the more willingly appeal to your Iudgment here touching these things whereof we are accused because I know you are expert in the Questions that are amongst us Say then Whether ever any such Controversie arose betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists Let me hear of one Non-conformist that ever asserted That a Man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England or that no Conformist could be saved Yet this learned Professor would have them all to be such As is too plain from that very odious Parallel which he says p. 408. One might make betwixt them and the Donatists Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an Opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved As for his comparing them with Popâ— Victor some will smile at it as more fitly agreeing to others that are for excomunicating Christians for meer Non-conformity in matters of Ceremonies And no better will the Comparison hold betwixt them and the Audeans or Anthropomorphites as whosoever reads what Antiquity says of them may perceive If they were against rich Bishops that is not to the Point If our Bishops would be content with their Riches and quit their claim of Divine Right till it can be proved or not require our Acknowledgment of it before we believe it nor impose such things on us as we are sure and can prove from what they wrote the Apostles would never have imposed whose Successors they pretend to be then I doubt not we could accord with them So that here also he shoots wide And thus alas by overdoing he hath hitherto done just nothing for you I know Sir that you to whose Iudgment I here appeal must needs acquit us from that Vncharitableness we are here charged with Or we are not the Men he speaks of we are not arrived to that horrible Impudence to excommunicate all of your Communion without Mercy We are not like the Donatists or those of the Roman Communion not as here we are represented And so if Dr. Potter's word â—ay be taken we are to be cleared and acquitted from the charge of Schisâ—â— As he says Answer to Charity mistaken Sect. 3. p. 75. printed at Oxford 1633. This clears us from the Imputation of Schism whose Property it is witness the Donatists and Lucifâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Can you find any such Separatists amongst those who yâ—t remain firmly united to you in the Confession of the same Faith We differ only as I said Rector of Sutton p. 31. as to certain external accidental Forms Modes and Rites which the Church of England cannot say are necessary and appear to us as things at least to be suspected and yet they are obtruded and imposed with as much Rigor and Strictness as if they were most highly necessary We doubt not yet but there are sober and truly pious Conformists whose Consciences do not scruple the Lawfulness of these things But here I would say as Dr. Potter ibid p. 76. To him who in simplicity of heart believes them to be lawful and pracfiseth them and withal feareth God and worketh Righteousness to him they shall prove Venial Such a one shall by the Mercy of God either be delivered from them or saved with them But he that against Faith and Conscience shall go along with the Stream to profess and practise them because they are but little Onâ—s his Case is dangerous and witout Repentance desperate So though the learned Professor compares the present Dissenters because he knows them not with the Donatists I may here borrow an Expression of
I cannot see what can hinder a mutual good Agreement Pag. 410. And seeing the good of the â—tare and Church depends absolutely upon the Union of the People in the Point of Religion one cannot there press an universal Union too much But it ought to be procured by good means An Vnion in Religion may be without Vniformity in Ceremonies You will not own it that you place Religion in these that they are any parts of Religion But the pressing of such unnecessary doubtful things upon Men about which many are and ever will be dissatisfied seems no good nor probable means to procure an Vniversal Vnion That Prudence and Charity which this Professor afterwards commends as necessary in this Work would in my simple Judgment direct to other Means and Methods Notes upon the Second Letter from Monsieur de L' Angle ADD P. 420. I have not met with such Writings said to be lately published to make Men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Or if I have seen any such they are quite out of my Mind As to the former of these do but allow them to distinguish as you do in your Rational Account and they will say They have communion with the Church of England so far as it is a Church and very many of them have ordinary Communion in the self-same Worship so far as it is God's Worship And what is redundant it is not necessary that they should have Communion in It is one thing to say Communion with the Church of England is simply unlawful unlawful in it self and so unto all Men and another to say that Communion in the Liturgies or Ceremonies is unlawful to them who cannot yet be satisfied that they are lawful But we are further supposed to believe that Communion with the Church of England is intolerable in what follows that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Here let every one so far as they are called to it speak for themselves For my part I have never made it any of my Work God and Men are Witnesses to warn others to take heed how they had Communion with the Church of England I have never told any living Soul that I should sin if I did not forbid their joyning with Parochial Congregations Rather it should be my Prayer I am sure it is my Hearts desire that sober Conformists and Non-conformists might once come to joyn each with other notwithstanding their lesser Differences But it seems it is not permitted to you to have Communion with such at Dr. O. and Mr. B. tho you may have Communion with others from whom you differ in greater Matters both as to your Judgments and Practices too while they do but conform then is there not some strange secret Virtue or Inchantment in this Chain of Conformity It can congregate the heterogeneous while it separates those who are more homogeneous But that this is not the Doctrine of the Non-conformists that they cannot permit private Persons to have Communion with you without sinning I am very apt to conclude because M. Le Moyne went to several of their private Assemblies while he was at London and could never hear any such thing from any of them Otherwise sure he that could remember the citing of Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times in one Sermon and tell us of it five years after tho I doubt his being so â—â—sy in casting up such Accounts might be the cause he waâ— not at all edified by the Sermon would not have failed to take notice of such a thing as that being more pertinent and material And for the same Reason with others I cannot believe what follows hâ—â—e p. 423. That The Bugbâ—ar Words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist are continually beaten into the Peoples Ears If so M. Le Moyne had been as likely as any Person to have catched at them and then had we heard of them again But further some of us have the very same to say that this Learned Person says P. 420 421. That In frequenting your Assemblies and preaching too in â—ongregations that are under the Jurisdiction of the Church of England when we could enjoy the Priviledg which indeed â—â—th been very rarely we have thus also shewn that we do not believe her 〈◊〉 to be unlawful Add P. 422. Schism is the most formidâ—ble â—vil thaâ— can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this 〈◊〉 â—Charity obliges all good Men to bear with then Brethâ—◠〈…〉 much less â—olerable than those of which the dispute is 〈…〉 the Eyes of those that have the most aversion fro◠〈◊〉 I thought it would appear that these â—minent learned Men did not rightly and fully understand our case So the former speaks as if we did excommunicate the Church of England without Mercy Whâ—â— alas we are rather under her Excommunication And this learneâ— Person speaks as if we had not so much Christian Charity as to bear with our Brethren in the use of a few Ceremonies but that is not the thing in Question Many of us at least could and do bear with youâ— Conformity and joyn with you notwithstanding But will it not follow from his own Words That Christian Charity obliges you to bear with ouâ— Non-conformity yet you will not bear with us I hope you would be counted good Men. Now he says Christian Charity obliges all good Men to bear with their Prethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the disâ—â—â—â— is The Apostle gives Timothy a very solemn Charge then are not Bishops concerned in it if Timothy was a Bishop 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by Partiality And one of these things he was to observe we find v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine Yet how many that have been â—alled to the work of the Ministry how many of your Brethren that would gladly labour in the work they have been called unto and you have been doing them what dishonour you can loading them with the charge of Schism and unreasonable Separation while you can bear with things much less tolerablâ— in others Is this your Christian Charity Or doing nothing by Partiality Are there no Non-conformists that use to hear you when they have Opportunity I am apt to think there are And thus they bear with you as to matters in dispute farther than you are seen to bear with them But this must be noted It is one thing for us to bear with your Conformity and another thing by Word and Deed to declare our approbation of Conformity or to conform meerly because you do so and require us to do so tho we suspect it to be sinful As the Lord Faulkland I
so far without such cost and pains and loss of time as will deprive them of the Benefit 2. When Parishes are so great that the allowed Pastors cannot preach to half or a fourth or tenth part and cannot visit half the sick c. 3. Where the allowed Pastors are so slothful or proud that they will not condescend to such Offices of personal Help as the People have need of especially to the poorer sort 4. Where they are young raw or ignorant unable to counsel People as their necessities require in order to their Salvation 5. Where they are so profane and malignant that if poor People come to them with Cases of Conscience or for Counsel what they must do to be Saved they will but deride them and would make them believe that to be sollicitous about Salvation and afraid of Sinning and seriously Godly is but to be Hypocrites Melancholly or Mad. 6. Where they are Heretical and not to be trusted in point of Faith When in any of these Cases the People or part of them are deprived of that Pastoral Help which their necessity requireth and God commandeth whether may they not seek it where they can best have it Ib. p. 100 101 102. Whether many Souls are not like to be fed or famished and consequently to live or die as Non-conformists do their Duty or neglect it Sacril Desert p. 84. And whether if the poor were famishing about us any Law of Mans can disoblige us from relieving them Ib. p. 85. Q. 57. If they that are vowed to the Ministry are bound to exercise the Ministry and otherwise would be sacrilegious and cruel to Souls can they preach without Auditors And can those Auditors be no Congregation Ib. p. 70. Q. 58. Where both the ejected and imposed Minister are fit Persons whether may not the People take them both conjunctly for their Pastors each administring to the same Church according to their various Liberties and Capacities ib. p. 11. Q. 59. If Conformists generally would set themselves to preach and pray in a sound and serious holy manner and encourage and promote Piety in the People and willingly accept of all the Help they could get here if they endeavoured to do God and his Church more Service than those that went before them whether they would not be more honoured at least by the better sort and that deservedly than ever they must look to be for Rigidness about Ceremonies c. Whether Godliness be not that which godly People most care for ibid. p. 126. Q. 60. Whether would they have People taught reformed saved or not If yea would they not have necessary help to do it If not are such fit to be Ministers of Christ And does that Man truly know what it is to be a Minister or a Christian that perceives not a necessity of Help if he can have it ibid p. 129. And if things in England were once brought to that pass that really our Labour would be unnecessary in the Judgment of those that are not Infidels Ignorants or malignant Enemies of an holy Life whether need any fear coming to loss if they were bound for us that we would presently gratify all that desire our Silence or Banishment rather than trouble Men with needless Work ib. p. 134. Q. 61. Whether is it the Paucity of ignorant and ungodly Souls or the great Number Ability Zeal and Diligence of the Conformists that makes the Labours of others needless Or what are their Thoughts of Souls of Sin of Repentance of Holiness and of their own Sufficiency and Labours Ib. p. 57. As of old every single Church had usually many Presbyters and Deacons with the Bishop so is it not undeniable that many of our Parishes have Work enough for many Ministers And whether the only thing pretended for our present Paucity be not the want of Maintenance with the want of worthy Men First Plea c. p. 227. Q. 62. Whether then might it not have been expected of such as needed and desired the help of their Brethren that long ere this they should have petitioned Rulers for the Liberty of their Ministry when all knew that there was no Hope their own petitioning should have Success Whether might they not have humbly acquainted our Rulers That all our Labours conjoyned are too little that they needed our Help and the ignorant our Teaching that their Judgment was our Ministry is more necessary than our personal Conformity And whether should not Ministers of all Men have been most sensible of the Churches Breaches Loss and Danger and most compassionate over Peoples Souls Sacril Desert p. 135. And whether had they not healed all our Breaches if they had petioned and prevailed but for these two things viz. 1. That the door of Entrance might not have been barred by any other Subscriptions Professions or Oaths than what were used in the Churches of Christ till the Exaltation of the Papacy for 600 Years besides the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the subscribing the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles according to the 13th of Queen Elizabeth 2. That those so subscribing who dare not use the Liturgy and Ceremonies might have leave to preach in the Churches which use them under Laws which shall restrain them from all unpeaceable Opposition to what they dare not use or to the Government of the Church ibid. p. 136 137. And what but a spirit of Envy or a carnal Interest cross to the Interest of Christ and Mens Salvation should grudge at their Preaching while they are responsible for all they say or do amiss First Plea c. p. 249. Q. 63. Whether the Accusers of the Non-conformists who feign strange things of them relating to Doctrine and Government which they do not own do not 1. Hereby render them contemptible and odious as brain-sick Persons who keep up a dividing Faction in spight of the Light and Obligation of the common Principles of Humanity and Society 2. And do they not hereby imprint the Stamp of Satan viz. the hatred of their Brethren on the minds of such Hearers as will believe them and receive the Impress 3. And do they not hereby fill Families Cities and Countries with all that Spawn of ugly Sins which are the Genuine Fruits of such Hatred and Contempt and keep Men also from Repentance for any thing that they have said or done how cruelly soever against such Ministers and others that are represented as so odious to them 4. And do they not hereby fortify the Peoples Souls against receiving converting or edifying Instruction by such accused Ministers 5. And do they not thus furnish Papists Infidels and other Adversaries with matter of Accusation against one part of the Ministers and Servants of Christ c. Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea for Peace p. 21 22. And whether is it not diabolical for any to be angry if as we have Opportunity we so fâ—r undeceive the People as to acquaint them with our
whether are any bound to obey them at least when they over-rule Christ's own Institutions Way of Concord p. 111. § 15. And whether to devise new Species of Churches without God's Authority and impose them on the World in his Name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks be not a far worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies ibid. § 16. Q. 74. Whether a Society of Neighbour-Christians associated with a Pastor or Pastors for personal Communion in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship be not a Church Form of Divine Institution First Plea c. p. 8. And whether any Proof hath ever been produced that many Churches of this first Rank must of Duty make one fixed greater compound Church by Association as Diocesan National c. and that God hath instituted any such Form Whether the greatest Defenders of Prelacy do not affirm such to be but humane Institutions ib. p. 12 13. Whether ever any satisfactory Proof hath been brought that ever Christ or his Apostles did institute any particular Church taken in a political Sense as organized and not meerly for a Community without a Bishop or Pastor who had the Power of teaching them ruling them by the Word and Power of the Church-keys and leading them in publick Worship ibid. p. 13. And whether hath it yet been proved that any one Church of this first Rank which was not an Association of Churches consisted in Scripture-times of many much less of many scores or hundreds such fixed Churches or Congregations Or that any one Bishop of the first Rank that was not an Apostle or Bishop of Bishops had more than one of such fixed Societies or Churches under him or might have more stated Members of his Church than were capable of personal Communion and mutual Assistance at due Seasons in holy Doctrine Discipline and Worship As now there are many Chappels in some Parishes whose Proximity and Relation to the Parish-Churches make them capable of personal Communion in due seasons with the whole Parish at least per vices in those Churches and in their Conversation and as a single Congregation may prudently in Persecution or foul Weather meet oft-times in several Houses so why might not the great Church of Ierusalem which yet cannot be proved a quarter so big as some of our Parishes hold their publick Meetings oft at the same time in divers Houses when they had no Temples and yet be capable of personal Communion as before described ibid. p. 13 14. And when the learned Dr. Hammond on 1 Tim. 3. saith The Church of the Living God was every such regular Assembly of Christians under a Bishop such as Timothy was an Oeconomus set over them by Christ c. doth he not here suppose as he elsewhere sheweth that de facto Episcopal Churches were in Scripture-times but single Congregations Then whether is the new Form of Congregations jure divino when they become but parts of a Bishops Church And may we not query the same of the new Form of a Diocesan Church ibid. p. 5 6. And doth not Ignatius expresly make one Altar and one Bishop with Presbyters and Deacons to be the Note of a Churche's Unity and Individuation Whence learned Mr. Ioseph Mede doth argue it as certain that then a Bishop's Church was no other than such as usually communicated in one place ibid. p. 17. And see Answ. to Dr. Still Serm. p. 75. or 69. Q. 75. And seeing it cannot be proved that God hath instituted any other than Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion whether must it not follow that none of the rest instituted by Man have Power to deprive such single Churches of any of the Priviledges granted them by Christ And whereas Christ hath made the Terms of Catholick Communion himself and hath commanded all such to worship him publickly in holy Communion under faithful Pastors chosen or at least consented to by themselves which was the Judgment of the Churches many hundred Years whether can any humane Order or Power deprive them of any of this Benefit or disoblige them from any of this Duty by just Authority Way of Concord p. 111. § 13. Q. 76. Then if any Prince would turn his Kingdom or a whole Province into one only Church and thereby overthrow all the first Order of Churches of Christ's Institution which are associated for personal present Communion allowing them no Pastors that have the Power of the Keys or all essential to their Office though he should allow Parochial Oratories or Chappels which should be no true Churches but parts of a Church Whether were it Schism to gather Churches within such a Church against the Laws of such a Prince First Plea c. p. 52. Or whether hath God made such proper Judges whether Christ should have Churches according to his Laws or whether God should be worshipped and Souls saved or his own Institution of Churches be observed Ibid. p. 53. Q. 77. And if any Persons shall pretend to have the Power of governing the Churches and Inferiour Pastors as their Bishops who are obtruded on those Churches without the Election or Consent of the People or inferiour Pastors and these Bishops shall by Laws or Mandates forbid such Assembling Preaching or Worship as otherwise would be Lawful and a Duty whether is it Schism to disobey such Laws or Mandates as such ibid. p. 80. Bishop Bilson of Subject p. 399. grants The Election of Bishops in those days belonged to the People and not to the Prince and though Valens by plain force placed Lucius there yet might the People lawfully reject him as no Bishop and cleave to Peter their right Pastor ibid. p. 79. And however in some Cases the Advantages of some imposed Persons may make it an Act of Prudence and so a Duty to consent yet whether are such truly the Bishops of such Churches till they do consent ibid. p. 80. Hath not this been taken for their Right given them by God And doth not Dr. Blondel de jure Plebis in Reg. Eccl. beyond Exception prove it with more ib. p. 81. Therefore if Bishops that have no Foundation of such Relative Power shall impose inferiour Pastors on the Parish-Churches and command the Peoples Acceptance and Obedience whether are the People bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that Command as such Or whether is it Schism to disobey it ibid. p. 82. Q. 78. Whether doth it not follow from the Principles of the Diocesan that holdeth a Bishop is Essential to a Church and consequently that we have no more Churches than Diocesses That he who separateth from a Parish-Church separates from no Church Sacril Desert p. 24. Q 79. Whether we should not more justly deserve the term of Schismaticks if we renounced Communion with all other Churches except Parochial and Conformists And whose Conscience should sooner accuse him of Schism Whether ouâ—s that resolve to hold Communion seasonably with all true Christian Churches among us that