one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
the Lord with them by their sinful Impositions and do what they can to hinder us from having them otherwise by their Persecutions many things of that nature are our Affliction and their Sin but all this cannot oblige us to Communicate with them in their Corruptions of God's Worship Sect. 4. I leave our Author to make the best he can of his first undertaking and come to attend him in his second to wit That constant Communion is a Duty where Occasional Communion is lawful This he manageth Sect. 17. Mr. B. and Mr. A. had given good instances to disprove this as it is here set down to wit joining with other Parishes in a Journey at a Lecture c. but I am willing to understand it with the Dr. of Communion with a Church whereof we have been or should be Members and of withdrawing from a Church for some Corruptions where yet I may Occasionally join in some duties for his opinion in this he bringeth two Arguments the first he taketh from the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church This he inforceth by proving this Obligation which none of us ever denied but do with more reason retort all that can be said on that heâ—d on themselves who will not do what they can for this Peace and Unity they will not quit so much as one of their needless Ceremonies â—or our part we are ready to do what we can without Sin for Peace and Unity but the Dr. should have proved 1. That our coming to their Sermons as often as there was no Let by the Liturgy joined with it and when they pleased to suffer us without Excommunication and Câ—piâ—ndo's would preserve that which he calleth Peace and Vnity 2. That we being necessitated to have other Meetings for the pure Ordinances of God it was a lawful means for Peace and Unity with that Church that had driven us away to desert these Meetings and wait on so much of their Administrations as they should be pleasâ—d to allow us Our Hearts do not reproach us as this Learned Author doth That it is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience He meaneth toward Communion with the Church Sect. 5. But I perceive all the Strength of his Argument and the Zeal with which he prosecuteth it is built on a mistake to wit That we hold it lawful to Communicate with the Church in the Liturgy and Sacraments If Mr. B. or any other are of that opinion I know not why they should be Non-conformists If I were convinced of it I should not deny constant Communion with the Church whatever I might do Occasionally elsewhere only I think our Author need not talk so highly against his Opposites as he doth p. 159. when they speak of some cases where joining with the Church would do more harm than good Was ever Schism saith he made so light of And the Peace and Vnity of Christianity valued at so low a rate Ans. Yes to wit by them who will not part with a Trifling Ceremony for the Peace that they so much talk of but will impose these on scrupling Consciences by force to the dividing of the Church the laying aside of thousands of well qualified Ministers and the Hazard and Ruin of many Souls Did ever men in the World make lighter of the Peace of Christians than these men do if you believe their deeds and yet value it more highly if ye regard their words He asketh p. 161. Which of them readeth what they think lawful in their own Assemblies Ans. We read part of that Service-Book daily in our Assemblies to wit the Scriptures therein contained we read them out of the Bible but for using the Book or any part of it as in that composure we find no obligation on us to that both because that would be very insignificant toward Unity with the Church more than Preaching of the same Doctrine and praying for the same things is counted by them also we look on the whole Frame and Model of that Service as a humane device that we ought to give no Countenance to in God's Worship Aâ—d lastly because having once parâ—ed with them in the matter of worship we think we should take our Rule for manageing our Worship from the Scripture rather than from their Ecclesiastical Constitutions Sect. 6. All his Arguments Sect. 18. do proceed on the forementioned mistake to wit that we count Communion with them in all their Ordinances lawful If that were true Communion with them sometimes for peace might well inferr constant Communion for the same good design Neither do I say that better means of Edification will warrant constant separate Assemblies however it may warrant Occasional Communion elsewhere then where we are Members of a Church I look not on our Lords Communion with the Jewish Church as only Occasional but Constant so far as the Woâ—k that he was sent into the World for did permit but I am far from thinking that ever he did communicate with the Jews in any part of their uninstituted worship as the Dr. alledgeth p. 162. His presence at the Feast of Dedication as other Jews were is asserted by the Dr. without all Ground and he knoweth our Writers do constantly deny it and therefore his bare asserting it should not have been thought enough to set it off All that the Scripture saith of this is That he walked in Solomon's Porch Joh. 10. 22 23. Did none of the Jews more than this at that Feast Is it not to be thought that he who did so sharply reprove their uninstituted Washings and other religious Observations on account of the want of Institution and defended the Non-conformity of his Disciples to these Observations would himself observe a Religious Solemnity that had no other warrant nor foundation but what those other things had which he condemneth It is then rational to think that he walked there to get opportunity to speak to the People at that concourse as the Apostles after did when they knew these Jewish Feasts to be abrogated and not fit to be observed Sect. 7. He bringeth a Second Argument Sect. 19. from Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things To prove that where Occasional Communion with a Church is lawful constant Communion is a Duty for saith he from hence appeareth evident that Men ought to go as far as they can toward Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity This Argument is but lamely proposed and this Scripture but weakly improved by what the Dr. saith to prove his design Two things it seems he would inferr from it to wit Vniformity and Study of Peace I first ask him whether he thinketh these two to be necessarily conjoined so
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
over the Christian world and how the Papists are hardened seeing no end of Schism To all this I answer 1. I know Rome and some others too will triumph when there is no cause for their so doing but as long as we can shew Scripture-warrant for what we hold and do we are unconcerned in their censures 2. That there is no cause for their triumphing appeareth because the Dr. and his Party who have the same cause of Triumph that the Papists could have on this occasion have as yet had no such victory in their Debates with us as to make them triumph 3. If by the Christian World he mean the Protestant part of Christianity for the rest we are less mâ—ved by their Judgments I hope they will not laugh at us who scruple nothing but what most of them have condemned as Additions to the Word of God and Corruptions of His Worship for so all the Calvinist-Churches and Divines have done 4. If the Papists be hardened as seeing no end of Schism they are to be blamed for we can shew them and others a good end of it to wit ordering the worship of God by his Institution or at least imposing nothing uninstituted as Terms of Communion with the Church Sect. 7. His Second Argument is Sect. 24. That this Separation maketh Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are This he proveth because the Lutheran Churches have these and more Ceremonies yet these Churches are thought true and fit to be united with by a Synod of the Reformed at Charenton 1631. The Helvetian Churches declare against separating for different Rites and Ceremonies So doth the Confession of Poland and that of Ausburg and Strasburg also Crecius and the Transilvanian Divines Nothing of all this cometh up the point as above stated We allow no Separation for these Rites and none of the Divines or Confessions mentioned disalloweth forbearing of them in our own persons nor injoineth using of them We do not separate because the Church useth them but She driveth us away because we cannot use them What he citeth out of Amyraldus p. 189. that the nature of Ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine that goeth along with them I have said somewhat to above I deny not but a bad Doctrine may infect an indifferent Ceremoâ—y that is built on it but I cannot assent That the best Doctrine can justifie an uninstituted Ceremony in God's Worship He citeth Davenant giving three Reasons that may hinder Union and the first is Tyranny over Mens Faith and Conscience let but this be removed and our Separation is at an end for I think the Dr. will hardly clear imposing of needless Ceremonies on them that are convinced of and can prove their sinfulness of this blame That Protestant Churches abroad have harder Terms of Communion than we he supposeth p. 198. but doth not prove the Calvinist Churches have not and if the Lutheran Churches have that is impose them with such rigour we cannot but eatenus condemn them Yet we shut not out the Lutheran Churches from all possibility of Union with them as he insinuates we can have Union with them as Sister Churches but we cannot partake in their instituted parts of Worship Sect. 8. His third Argument is that this will justifie the ancient Schisms that have alwaies been condemned in the Christian Church and he instanceth in the Schism of the Novatians and others But the Dr. hath done us Presbyterians the favour to free us of the trouble of this Debate with him by setting aside from their Pleas for Separation Ceremonies Liturgy and Holidays which are the things we insist upon I say no more on this Argument but take notice of the Dr's wonderful but most groundless confidence in a Parenthesis asserting That these are common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an universal consent in all parts of the Christian World. The first part of his Assertion is absolutely false for all the cunning used in inserting the Epithete great degeneracy of the Roman Church I know not where he will fix this great degeneracy whether in Boniface's usurping the Title of Vniversal Bishop or may be in the Council of Trent But he shall never prove that these were used in the Church before a notable degeneracy of the Church nor that they were used by all Christians even before the greatest degâ—neracy For the Second Part of his Assertion it is beyond comprehension what he can mean by it for he cannot be ignorant that these are not continued in all nor most of the Reformed Churches but disowned in their Confessions and by their Practice But some mens confidence or pretence to it runs highest when Truth and Reason is with them at the lowest ebb Sect. 9. I come now to his Fourth Argument Sect. 26. That these grounds will make separation endless He prosecuteth this Argument in 12 pages by shewing the evil of Schism p. 197. reprovâ—ng Mr. A. for making too light of it p. 198. and exposing him in a mimick loâ—g Oration in the excuse of it p. 199 200 201 202 203. and citing Mr. B. setting forth the evil of Schism p. 204 205 206. and reproving Mr. A. for not setting Bounds to Separation All which I shall pass by as not against the cause that I maintain and only briefly answer his Argument if either his Party or any pretended to be on our side will not keep within that Boundary let them answer it That Separation will soon be at an end if the Church impose nothing but what is warranted by Scripture and if People refuse nothing so as to separate for it but what they can shew Scripture-ground that it were their Sin to own it or do it Sect. 10. His Fifth Argument is taken from the Obligation that lieth on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church To enforce this Argument the Dr. doth well prove several sound truths but such as none of them nor all of them conclude against withdrawing from the Church when sinful Terms of Communion are imposed as 1. That the Study of Unity is a Duty 2. That this Unity doth not lie in bare Communion in Faith and Love. 3. Nothing can discharge us from this Obligation to study Unity but what is allowed by Christ or his Apostles as a sufficient reason for it What is all this to make up an Obligation to sin against God rather than separate from the Church But a fourth thing he insisteth on may be will help him better He telleth us of three cases wherein Scripture alloweth of Separation to wit Idolatrous Worship False Doctrine mens making indifferent things necessary to Salvation That this is not a sufficient enumeration I prove 1. Because there may be sinful Terms of Communion imposed where none of these are May not men make owning Traditions of Men necessary to their
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
apprehend pleaseth him without mens leave when they cannot do it with their leave It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Vniformity and not rather in Consent in the main points of Religion and loving forbearance in reference to the rest Sect. 34. The 5. is The exposing our selves to the Papists and others by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation This is plain enough yet without wronging the scope or sence it might have been thus expressed more openly We are ashamed to mend lâ—st Men should think that we once were wrong This Reason if it prove any thing will conclude against all Reformations Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's Azariah's and Josiah's time of which before This will expose us to Baal Worshippers as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time and in Q. Elizabeth's time in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead and some other things were laid aside that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other what could they say but that some of their Superstitions were at first over-lookt which now you see the Evil of and think fit to remove them What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England It will be hard to convince those of mistake who think that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them when they see how loath they are to go too far from them This Principle seemeth to make what we have done or the first Frame of the Reformation the Rule of the Reformation rather than the Word of God Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment and next to nothing compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation It is known to them who have lookt into the History of the Council of Trent that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy that was so much desired and stickled for by some His sixth Reason is The difficulty of keeping out priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against Peoples reading Scripture The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests and willing to have their Company or so unskilful that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine from that of a Protestant or to admit Ministers among them to the Discharge of that office without Trial and Testimonials Or if he suppose that when men are allowed by Law to Worship God without Ceremonies that the Law is so laid asleep that men may do what they list If I say all these things be supposed this Reason may seem to have some weight but without such a supposition it is lighter than Chaff and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions and that they are necessary to keep out Popery Enough hath been already said to lay open the fondness of this Imagination and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare when it serveth a turn After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon he distinguisheth p. 55. between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity that he meddleth with the former not the latter his reason is If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church many Ministers would change their Mind I contract but not misrepresent what he saith To this I return two things 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse is not easily understood But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Non-conformist Ministers and their People according to the Maxime Divide impera If all the People might lawfully conform and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth Lay-Communion is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds not to say Thousands of ministers many of them Eminent and most if not all of them compleatly fitted for the Work of the Gospel and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church how the Labours of all these may not be lost while the Harvest is great and the Labourers few unless it be thought that the Case is not so now and Shall they all be rendered useless rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with when it suiteth their purpose Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination yet we cannot think so of our selves and that one Principle sheweth them the greatest Schismaticks that are among Protestants for by it they unchurch most if not all the Reformed Churches and unminister all their Pastours and nullifie Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion that is joining in their Service and the use of the Ceremonies that nothing that we yet have seen is able to remove as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear He alledgeth p. 6. that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists For the sign of the Cross Mr. Baxter saith The sin if it be one in using it is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptized but the Ministers and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy To all this I answer We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old but do not for it withdraw it being the Minister's fault not Ours For Kneeling it is our own act and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it which the Church will not do or for bear the Sacrament in which it is for we utterly deny that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it neither do I see how they can and disallow other Ceremonies
and Pious and Learned Sr. Matthew Hales in his Book of Schism hath this passage In times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions where Religious Assembling is dangerous private meetings howsoever beside publick Order are not only Lawful but they are of necessity and Duty All pious Assemblies in times of persecution and Corruption however practised are indeed or rather alone the Lawful congregations and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition Sest 40. He answereth an Objection pag. 77. That the Publishing of this Book is now unseasonable being a hindrance to the Vnion of Protestants to which there seemeth now to be a general Inclination He Alledgeth p. 78. that the principles of Non-conformists hinder that Vnion and lay a foundation for perpetual Divisions He knoweth that we will not own this and therefore proveth it as he thinketh On the principles laid down by some of the Dissenting Brethren Let the constitution be never so easie to themselves others may make use of their grounds and carry on the Difference as high as ever I wish he had told us what these grounds are But it is an Odd kind of Reasoning we will not endeavour Union with them who may be Tollerated because they who are not to be Tolerated will expect the same favour The ground on which we plead for forbearance is our Scruple about what you confess to be no Institution of Christ nor necessary duty we in our Conscience judge it unlawful and can shew good reason for our so judging How this ground can be Improved by any body to heighten Differences unless it be by the peremptoriness of them that will Impose such Things I do not understand He professeth to be for Vnion that will lessen differences and not weaken but strengthen the Protestant Religion Now let any judge whether the Union that is founded on the ground proposed be not such Sect. 41. He saith p. 97. That Vniversal Liberty differeth from Vnion as loosing from binding and it is strange if that which Papists lately thought the best Means to bring in Popery should now be lookt on as the most effectual way to keep it out Ans. We do not nor ever did plead for Vniversal Liberty which was that which no doubt Papists aimed at ergo nihil dictum But suppose saith he the Indulgence be at present strictly limitted to Dissenting Protestants we are not sure it will always continue so Will not the same Reasons as to Scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. be extended further when occasion serveth and Popery getteth footing on the Dissenters Grounds Ans. Were it not as rational for us to say Tho' we can now join with the Church of England in her present Ceremonies what know we how soon on the same grounds she may bring in all those of Popery Let us forbear evil surmising and mind our present Duty especially seeing the way to prevent this feared Evil is obvious to wit that no Indulgence be granted after but what there is as good Reason for and as little hazard from as is at present Neither do we plead for Indulgence meerly on the grounds of Sâ—ruple of Conscience or Suffering for Religion but on other grounds in conjunction with these as hath been a little above expressed It is like our Grounds may be comprehended in his wide-Bellied c. but if by it he means all grounds of Forbearance now may be extended to plead for an undue Toleration then all Forbearance of Christians that dissent in any thing must be unlawful which is contrary to the Scripture formerly mentioned and to the general Sentiments of all Christians except Papists whose Religion standeth by Blood and Cruelty Sect. 42. Where saith he hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater Harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Witness the state of the Northern Kingdoms compared with the number of Papists in the united Netherlands I can soon tell him where to wit under Episcopal Persecution of Protestants in Britain If this be a mistake these Nations have been for some Years in a Dream Again his Instance is wide from the purpose for we plead not for a Toleration of all sects and particularly not of Papists what Toleration is in the Netherlands themselves can best give account of He asserteth it impossible to keep out Popery where Toleration is allowed and I assert it as impossible to keep in Christianity in an impure Church where it is not allowed and yet there is no inconsistency between the two Assertions if we distinguish between a Limited Toleration which we plead for and one Vnlimited which he all along speaketh of To talk of Toleration thus without distinction is to walk in the Clouds and not descend to the thing in debate which is unbeseeming a Disputant Sect. 43. He bringeth Three Arguments p. 79 80. to prove his Assertion 1. Because of the various waies of creeping in under several Disguises which the Priests and Jesuits have and can never be prevented where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters and an unaccountable Church-power is allowed to separate Congregations Ans. 1. This Argument Supponit falsum which we have often disclaimed to wit That we plead for a general Indulgence to Dissenters we desire it may be limitted to men of peaceable Principles and Practices to such as differ from the publick way in matters not Fundamental nor near to the Foundation and for our part who are Presbyterians we seek forbearance only in things that are acknowledged to be none of Christ's Institutions and in things that are neither against Godliness nor the Peace of Church or State. Another Falshood that he supposeth is That we plead for an unaccountable Church-power in Separatâ— Meetings We plead for no Power in them but what a good account can be given of from Scripture and what is allowed commonly to a Church as such 2. I mention'd before a way of preventing the creeping in of Priests and Jesuits for all their Cunning to wit The due Exercise of Church-Discipline in all the ways that shall be tolerated especially in the admission of Ministers to their Office and if these Foxes creep in at undiscerned cranies if Discipline be in vigour they may be cast out again before they can do any considerable harm to the Flock Sect. 44. Argument 2. Because it will be great hardship when mens heats are over for them the Papists only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest of Phanaticks are allowed it Answ. 1. Still the old Supposition must found all his Arguments We plead for no Toleration to any Phanaticks properly so called much less to the wildest of them 2. There are many weighty Reasons why Papists should be denied that Liberty that is allowed to Protestant Dissenters from the Grossness of their Heresies the Idolatry of their Worship the Unpeaceableness of their Principles such
to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets not to the People As for Pastors not now to be Elected but obtruded on the people and sâ—tled among them tho' in an undue way I shall not say that it is the Peoples part to separate meerly for the Insufficiency of the Minister if the Ordinances be Administred so as they can partake of them without Sin. That which can warrant withdrawing must be a Depravation of the Ordinances and that such as importeth my personal Action in partaking of that depravation of the Ordinance and not every defect or fault either of the Minister or the Ordinance What Mr. B. saith of peoples Duty to get the best supply they can which the Dr. taxeth him for is not meant of dâ—ferting or separating from a Parish meerly on Accompt of the defective Qualiâ—â—cations of the Minister but either of Occasional Communion with a better supplied Society which if the Dr. do altogether condemn he should Preach against the Throngs that resort to him and leave others under whose particular charge they are Or when withdrawing is founded on other good Grounds that people should chuse better qualified Pastors than those they leave What he saith himself must Explain and Defend What Mr. B. further saith of the warrantable Preaching of Silenced Ministers and of the Magistrates imposing Pastors obliging people to adhere to and own these and forsake their own Pastors settled among them in the way of the Gospel come afterward to be debated and hath in part been spoken to above Sect. 5. Argument 3d. They give directions to the People what sort of Ministers they should own and what not And doth not the Scripture so too We Affirm people to have a Judgment of Discretion both of their Pastors to be Elected and also of the Doctrine and Administrations of their Pastors already in possession of the chaâ—ge of their Souls And yet that they are not to separate from the latter for any defect save that which doth so vitiate the Ordinances as that it is their Sin to join in them And if the Dr. will not allow them this Judgment as he seemeth to deny it by his Sarcasm of which saith he to wit utter Insufficiency and Heresie the People are admirable Judges he must introduce implicite Faith and Obedience And by this Doctrine it had been a Sin in the People even to have left Rome it self for were not they admirable Judges of the Heresie and Idolatry of that Church He that chargeth other mens way so fiercely with a Tendency to Popery should take heed of giving ground for such a Reflection to be made on himself Our Lord doth not speak with such Contempt of the People as this Learned Dr. doth He saith My Sheep hear my Voice and they know not the Voice of strangers Joh. 10. 27. and 5. to deny this Spirit of discerning to the People of God is to make them Sheep in a literal Sense that men may Rule over them as Beasts I see not such Inconsistency in Mr. B's Words as the Dr. would make us believe while he speaketh p. 123. of withdrawing from the utterly Insufficient and Heretical and p. 124. that people are not warranted to withdraw for a Ministers personal Faults nor for his ministerial Faults while his ministration is not utterly untolerable if the Dr. can shew either the Falshood or Inconsistency of these Assertions we shall own it He also wrongeth Mr. B. and the Non-conformists while p. 124. he telleth us of Mr. B's outcries against the People as Heady Rash Câ—nsorious Proud Ignorant such as are ready to Scorn and Vill fy the Gravest and Wisest Preachers And hence He the Dr. inferreth that such are unfit to discern the Qualifications of Ministers I ask the Dr. if ever Mr. B. said that the People were all or generally such We deny not there are too many that deâ—erve severe Reproofs for such things and Mr. B. hath not been too sparing in his Censures of them but is there any shadow of reason for inâ—erring thence That all the People should be deprived of the Right that Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed to them It were as reasonable to say that because many men Misguide or Debauch away their Estates therefore no man should haâ—e the Power of managing his Estate Christ hath provided Discipline and Authority in his House to Curb the Extravâ—gancy of such persons and to restrain the Power of Election when it is mis-managed as is above-said And he needed not the Dr's and tâ—e â—â—elates device to prevent this mischief by putting the power of Election into the Hands of a Patron who may be a Papist Atheist or Enemy to Godliness and so less fit to chuse one to take the charge of mens Souls than any of the Persons described Sect. 6. And if Mr. B. say That the heady Persons mentioned are commâ—nly the most violent and will judge in spite of the rest Yet the Remedy that I have mentioned is for restraining of them and is like to do it betâ—eâ— than what the Dr. is for can do Neither doth Mr. B. nor any of us allow these heady persons to be the decisive Judges either of who of his side or who of our side are true and sufficient Ministers Which the Dr. might have known and so spaâ—ed much of his discourse which I shall not Transcribe That which Mr. B. telleth of many young rare injudicious Preachers in England was never look'd on as sufficient ground of Separation by it sâ—lf as the Dr. insinuateth But it is a sad grievance and these men withal imposing sinful Terms of Communion on the people for who greater Zealots for Liturgy and Ceremonies than they and there being many faithful and qualified Ministers laid aside from their publick work is it any wonder that people leave the one and cleave to the other The Ground that I have already laid down will justifie our withdrawing from the Ministers even in London however Grave and Learned they be and however Capacious their Churches be For even their sinful Terms of Communion are imposed Sect. 7. He alledgeth Sect. 9. That by this means Separation cannâ—t be kept out of any Church whatsoever This is true if the Dr. have liberty to make our opinion to be what he pleaseth to have it that he may the better refute it But if our opinion be rightly understood and if we be heard speak for our selves it is most false I hope there are Churches where the Ministers generally are sound in Doctrine and mix nothing with God's Ordinances as Terms of â—ommunion with them that is unlawful In a Word There are Churchâ—s where tho' Ministers be not faultless yet the ordinances are pure or if there be any thing amiss in the Ordinances people are not required to own it peâ—sonally From such we will not withdraw He bringeth Four Qualities that Mr. B. required in Ministers the want of which may warrant to withdraw from them Tolerable Knowledge That they be
saith it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church because he saith We receive him into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him c. Answer It is not material to our debate which of the Two be said for the question is Whether the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ when he hath already appointed a sign for that end We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign to be done in her name after the person is already dedicated by Christs sign and in His name If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number and that may be done in her name I answer by Christs sign that is also done by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christs Flock But beside this it is evident that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church but dedicating of the person to Christ not only from the plain words of the Canon of which already but by what followeth in the words used at the signing which are We receive him into the number of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Souldier and Servant unto his lives end Amen Will any man say that this is meer admission as a Member of the Church or into the Church of England and that no more is intended by these words Is it not made a sign of our Covenant or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism To wit all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of The absurdity of this notion to wit that Crossing is meerly an admitting sign will yet further appear if we consider that in the same office of Baptism used by the Church of England the Minister having put the God-fathers in mind of Christs promise to the Infant to be baptised he is to say Wherefore after this promise made by Christ these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties that they will forsake the Devil and all his works and constantly believe Gods Holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments This is the baptismal Dedication I hope that will not be denied Now is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign as well as Baptism And it may as well be said that Baptism is meerly a rite of admission into the Church as that is such Sect. 22. He telleth us page 351. that all publick admissions into Societies have some Ceremonie belonging to them That we deny not and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church which he having done how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end As Baptism saith the Doctor is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used withâ—ut prescribing to other Churches This now is the fine new Notion for the sake of which all the foregoing discourse is designed The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour and hard throws of a Mountain I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. that by this one Notion the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book which is to charge them with separation most of whom he here doth implicitely and by necessary consequence acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England they never having been signed with the Cross For if they never were Members they were not capable of separation more than another Mans Leg can be said to be cut off from my body to which it never was united 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church but the quite contrary as is evident from what is already cited both out of the Thirtieth Canon and out of the Office of Baptism both which are the authentick Writings of the Church wherefore this is to be lookt on as but one Doctors Opinion and we are to take the scope and meaning of the Churches Ceremonies from her own declaration and not from the thoughts of any one man when he is streightned in defending of these rites 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross should be willing now to join as Members of the Church and to submit to all her terms of Communion whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission The same may be enquired concerning any Baptized in France Scotland or any other Church I suppose he will not own such Crossing I am sure it was never heard of if he say it is not to be done How do these become Members of the Church The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant even where it is not joined with Baptism why then do not the Church of England for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church require this Crossing out of Baptism if it be meerly a sign of admission into the Church of England 4. If the Church and the Dr. too and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church would declare never so often that this is the use and the only use of Crossing all this could not satisfy as long as the words used with it and the Religious State in which it is by their practice sixed do make the contrary apparent Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross his Brethren do not approve yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating or common professing sign of Baptized Persons to wit that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end Then the Dr. answereth True but not only for that end but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men for which God oâ—ly ought to appoint means Reply 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christs for all the ends that they are appointed for but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends because Christs means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify Gods promise of giving grace but also to signify our engagement to perform duty Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one more than for the other 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a
The Dr. is pleased Sect. 32. to engage in a debate with Mr. A. about bowing at the Name of Jesus and counts opposing it a blow at the Church If the Dr. would have defended this Ceremony he should have answered what is of purpose learnedly and solidly written against it by Mr William Wicken and twelve arguments against it by another hand and not satisfied himself with answering some occasional reflections made on it by Mr. A. But this Ceremony being imposed by the Church as one of the terms of her Communion which I knew not till I find the Dr. here doth not deny it I shall a little consider it by proposing our scruples against the use of it and taking off the edge of what the Dr. bringeth in defence of it But we must first consider the true state of the controversy which is not whether all possible Honour be due to the Glorious Person who is so Named Nor whether it be unlawful at the hearing of that Name or any other Name whereby that Blessed Person or either of the other Persons of the God-head are designed to have the heart raised to adore that Majesty whom Saints and Angels Worship Yea nor thirdly whether it be in it self and always a sin to express our adoration of him by an outward sign of kneeling as bowing or lifting up the eyes when the heart is thus excited by the mention of his Name or any of these other Names All these we readily yield And our Brethren on the other hand grant that no Worship direct or indirect mediate nor immediate such as Papists give to their Images is due to the Name i. e. the Word 2. That there is no duty lying upon People always and every where to bow at the hearing of this Name for they appoint it only to be done in the time of Worship The 18 Canon prescribeth it only in time of divine Service it is not there restricted to the Lessons and the Creed as the Dr. alledgeth page 362. In the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeths Sermons are also taken in a general clause when otherwise in the Church mentioned carrieth it to all acts of Worship which the Dr. without ground would limit to wit when they are not imployed in any other act of Devotion 3. They make it no natural but instituted piece of Worship the Dr. all along speaketh of it only as lawful never pleadeth for the necessity of it and defendeth it only so far as it is required by the Church It is true some of them plead Scripture for it to wit Phil. 2. 10. and by consequence must make it a duty as naturally necessary as praying and believing But I do not find that the learned among them do insist on this The question then is 1. Whether it be lawful for the Church to command People to use outward signs of reverence by bowing the head or knee or otherwise when ever they hear the Name of Jesus mentioned in Divine Worship when yet no such injunction is given in reference to any other Name of Gods 2. Whether it be lawful for People to obey such commands To both our Brethren answer affirmatively and we answer negatively Sect. 27. The same reasons will serve for both parts of our opinion They are 1. This Bowing is an uncommanded piece of Worship Ergo it is unlawful The consequence dependeth on Christ's condemning of Mens Traditions in his Worship as vain on this account that they are the Commands of Men Math. 15. 9. Mark 7. 7. of which before And I think the Doctor will not deny it who owns that Acts of Worship must have divine Warrant page 348. The Antecedent hath Two Parts to wit that this Act is uncommanded and that it an Act of Worship For the First Few of our Brethren alledge a Command for it for then it should not be indifferent as they make it and they that plead a Command found it in Phil. 2. 10. But that place doth no way injoin any such Rite For first the Greek Text is plain not at but in the Name of JESUS 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which to expound of Bowing at the hearing of the Word is the greatest Violence that can be done to plain Words For the plain sense is that subjection to his Dignity and Power shall be yielded by all Creatures 2. This Text can no way be restricted to the Reverence given in Divine Service but must either prove this a duty at all times when this Name is uttered or it proveth no such expression of Reverence at all 3. The Text speaketh only of kneeling and I know not that it is in the Churches Power where the Lord commandeth kneeling to change it into bowing of the Head. 4. If this be injoined so is confessing with the Tongue ver 11. What power hath the Church to pick and chuse Scripture-Commandments to injoin one and neglect another of equal Authority But why do I stay on this many Episcopal men and even some Papists look on this Text as nothing to the purpose in hand for the Second Part of the Antecedent that this Bowing is an Act of Worship I hope that will not be denyed it being a direct and solemn adoring of Jesus Christ and the stating of it in Divine Service and appropriating it to that doth constrain men to look so upon it Sect. 28. Argument 2. It is not reasonable Service Ergo It is not acceptable Service The Consequence I hope will not be denyed The Antecedent I prove because no Reason can be given for bowing at the hearing of this Word rather than at the mention of these other Names by which God Father Son and Holy Ghost or our Blessed Redeemer are called It is not enough that some Reason can be pretended for this practice singly considered For 1. Whatever Reasons be given for it do equally concern other Names of GOD and CHRIST and therefore must either prove the Church faulty in not instituting Worship to all these names or they prove nothing at all 2. Our main scruple is at the discrimination that is made by this Ceremony between this name and others that are equally holy therefore they must either give a reason why adoration is fit in this case rather than in the other cases or they do not reach the Question The Reasons given by the learned Hooker Eccles. polic lib. 5. Sect. 30. are not concludent to wit 1. It sheweth a reverend regard to the Son of God. Answer 1. Let the Father and Spirit have the same reverend regard 2. Every way of expressing our regard to him is not warrantable He hath appointed ways for it and not left them to our devising 2. He saith It maketh much against the Arians who deny his God head Answer 1. His way of convincing gain-sayers is by the Word we must not devise ways of our own to convince Hereticks Moses and the Prophets being God's way are more powerful to convince than if one were sent from the dead
upon Episcopacy which we do not and he no doubt doth it upon Misinformation But it is observable that this good man whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side doth as much blame the Church as us whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies that occasion Separation which he insisteth much on as the way to peace A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with is That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters a little after His Majesties Restauration nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians the contrary of which and their great Condescendency for Peace is known to all England and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity is the Book called A Petition for Peace containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed while the Prelatical Party would not part with yea nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony or mode of their Service Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude who walketh by the same Spirit and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague Monsieur de l' Angle He speaketh of Episcopacy as tollerable that one may with a good Conscience live under it This is not our Question but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause He telleth us they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops so do we He doth highly commend Love and Concord And we think it cannot be overvalued where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages both by Episcopacy and Parity and of disadvantages by both when managed by bad men Nothing of which do we contradict He complains of Extreams on both sides we do the same We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate as they should be After a proof of Independency he comes to speak of Presbyterians with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry this we refuse not He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart but stateth it on this ground page 445. as if we did Separate because the publick assembles are held under Episcopal Government and that we think our presence there were an approving of it which is wide from our case but no doubt is according to his information for which we â—hank our Episcopal Brethren and commend their ingenuity To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them which is far from our thoughts These Principles he doth most solidly refute He saith page 447. that he cannot believe that any of â—us Presbyterians look on their Episcopal Discipline or Ceremonies as blots and capital errours that hinder a man from Salvation And doth in this truly judge for we have always disowned such sentiments we judge them sinful evils which we dare not own but have much charity to some who own them He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation and when the dispute is about Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block and nothing in comparison of communion they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ better than themselves O that this advice were followed how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude or his Colleague touched our controversy Alas good Men they are abused by mis-representations Their Letters give just ground to think that if they were made Umpires between the two parties Prelatical and Presbyterian and heard the true state of our debate and true matters of fact they would be of the same mind with us And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side or at least to say nothing against them may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary Monsieur l' Arrogie who having writ a Book wherein he sheweth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome which all know to be Presbyterian with that of the Primitive Church And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle touching the Letters of Ignatius and the Apostolical Constitutions against Mr. Pearson and Beverige and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him at the request of some that favoured â—piscopacy he did not finish his answer These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants Ministers and others who do not Conform to the Church of England the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great Gosple Duty of charity At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies nor English Liturgy Since I wrote this I have met with another instance of Episcopal ingeâ—uity for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart dated Nov. 2d 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three poâ—itions whereof the third is a gross calumny and excellently disproved by Bochart and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him the position is Reges posse vi armis a subditis cogi in ordinem si se praebeant immorigeros de soliis deturbare in carcerem câ—njici siâ—â—i in jus carnificem deniqne capite plecti and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter as it is Printed after his Phaleg and Canaan from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford 1681. FINIS
for they all stand on one bottom to wit that they are not instituted but more of this in its due place For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow His Reasons in their place we shall Consider What he saith of the Crossing the Baptized Party I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it wherefore I answer That tho' it be the Ministers Action yet it is the Parties or his Representatives passion and that Personal It cannot be done on my Person or my Child 's without my Consent and Submission as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me I am culpable in reference to that Superstition So it is in this case Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon I am wholly a stranger to and can pass no Judgment on it but if this be as he saith it is no way to be justified But he should not charge the party with this There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike And if we should trouble the world with such publick Resentments of the same kind of dealings and worse that we and our way have met with and Daily do meet with not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party but from Pulpits and the Press not by the baser Phamphelteers only but famous Authors witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery we might write Books abundance His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say in that he representeth us as Depravers Raillers Back-bâ—ters Inventors of Lyes and spreaders of false Rumors and that of the best deserving men if they but come short of pleasing our humour Sect. 38. The Dr. next p. 59. taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries which I shall not stay to Consider Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness that he complaineth he hath received Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man will applaud his severe strain And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him I know not but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so dispised and his VVriting Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust it is neither so Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text of the Dr's Sermon he now waveth as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity which I think might have passed as Forreign to this purpose Sect. 39. One of his Antagonists p. 71. chargeth him with changableness in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum about which he maketh Diverse Apologies A change in this Learned Man is too visible and if it had been to the better it had not been Culpable but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Church-way I shall not meddle in that matter at this time Especially a change being upon the matter acknowledged by himself p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over That he had Asserted in his Irenicum that if others cast them wholly out of Communion then is their Separation necessary which he would reconcile with what he here writeth p. 47. by shewing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England for saith he Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication which he confesseth publick defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under ipso facto by the Canons but that it layeth on no Obligation till duely Executed But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema All this is very little to the present purpose for if we be all ipso facto Excommunicated and if this Excommunication be most frequently as it is Executed against us and capias's issued out commonly against us and all this for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity as he calleth it by these means we are de facto put in such a Case as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them and therefore we must either live without Gods Ordinances or have them out of Communion with their Church Again he Alledgeth p. 75. that he could not mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determineth That in the case of our Church men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it Neither doth this help the Matter for if we think as we do that we are bound in Conscience not to submit to all the Orders of the Church some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God and if for this Opinion and suitable Practice to it we be so excommunicated as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church then we are cast wholly out of the Church and our Separation must be Lawful on the ground that of old he had laid down But pag. 76. He would in that case allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion but not to proceed to a positive Separation But if we make use of his Allowance the Church who is of another mind putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances What can we then do but either live without them or proceed to that which he is pleased to call a positive Separation We are not convinced that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad for all the Letters that he mentioneth of which in their place And it is a rash Assertion which he knoweth cannot be Tried pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the unlawfulness of the present Separation He our Author maketh good the saying Quod misere volumus id facile credimus any man that hath seen the Vniformity in almost all things that is between our mode of Worship and their's and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England The excellent
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church