Churches Or as Mr. B. expresses it The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental Reasons sway the other way From whence we may take notice 1. That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer to them than the others are and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ierusalem where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him What Church he is Member of If he should Answer He could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none Would they take such a Man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church That they would all agree was no part of Catholick Christianity And I much doubt whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion that could not tell what Church he was Member of For as to the Church of England he declares That he holds only occasional Communion with that as he would do with any other tolerable Churches But Were they not Baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it if so then if they Communicate no otherwise with it than as a tolerable defective Church they must renounce their former Membership for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it And if they do renounce their Membership in this Church their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation We thank them that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable but we cannot see how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church so that this great favor of occasional Communion which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons and some very good occasions is not worth the speaking of among Friends and so far from looking like Communion that it hath hardly the face of a Civility 2. That if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen as they say then this occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life For that is sufficient to shew their true Catholick Principles and Mr. B. faith When no such accidental Reasons do sway they are to choose the least defective way of Worship or as Mr. A. speaks To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations If then a Man be bound out of love to his Soul to prefer the best way of Worship and he judges the way of the Separate Congregations to be such there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion For the same Reasons which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one and to forsake the other And why should a Man that is acquainted with purer Administrations give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disorderly and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel and not reprove her rather by a total forbearance of her Communion And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent and holding fast that which is good and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together perswade such a Man that it is not lawful to leave the best Communion meerly to shew what defective and tolerable Church he can communicate with Which is as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow or to leave wholsom Diet to feed on Mushroms and Trash 3. That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations and less defective wayes of Worship So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way Suppose some think our Churches tolerable and Mr. B's or Mr. A's Meetings were eligible but after a while when the first rellish 〈◊〉 they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉 or Quakers and then think their way more 〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable Are not these Men bound to forsake them for the same Reasons by which they were first moved to leave our Communion and joyn with them unless they be secure that the absolute perfection of their way of Worship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fancy any defect in it Mr. Baxter once very well said Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last it will admit of no consistency Parties will arise in the Separated Churches and Separate again from them till they are dissolved Why might not R. Williams of New-England mention'd by Mr. B. proceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence Why might he not go on still refining of Churches till at last he dissolved his Society and declared That every one should have liberty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience By which remarkable Instance we see that this Principle when pursued will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers To which Mr. B. Answers What harm will it do me or them if any hearers go from me as you say to Dr. O. None that I know For as Dr. O. saith Since your Practice is one and the same your Principles must be so also although you choose several wayes of expressing them But Did the whole force of my Argument lie there Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers upon the very same ground And Is this a good way of Answering to dissemble the main force of an Argument that something may seem to be said to it I suppose Mr. B's great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
the Gospel Was not the same Authority the same charge as to both of them Was there not the same promise and engagement to give faithful diligence to Minister the Doctrine and Sacraments Is there an indispensable obligation to do one part of your duty and none at all to the other Is this possible to perswade impartial Men that for 18 years together you thought your self bound to Preach against the Laws and yet never thought your self bound to do that which you were as solemnly obliged to do as the other Mr. B. knows very well in Church-History that Presbyters were rarely allowed to Preach and not without leave from the Bishop and that in some of the Churches he most esteems too viz. the African but they were constantly bound to Administer the Sacraments so that if one obligation were stricter than the other that was so which Mr. B. dispensed with himself in for 18 years together and why he might not as well in the other is not easie to understand However Why all this while no Constant Communicant with any Church What no Church among us fit for him to be a Member of No Obligation upon a Christian to that equal to the necessity of Preaching These things must seem very strange to those who judge of Christian Obligations by the Scripture and the Vniversal Sense and practice of the Christian Church in the best and purest Ages To what purpose is it to dispute about the true notion of an Instituted Church for personal presential Communion if men can live for 18 years together without joyning in Communion with any such Church What was this Communion intended for The antient Churches at this rate might easily be capacious enough for their Members if some never joyned with them in so long a time But he hath communicated occasionally with us Yes to shew what defective and tolerable Churches he can communicate with but not as a Member as himself declares and this occasional Communion makes him none For Mr. A. saith Their occasional Communion with us is but like any of our occasional Communion with them or occasional hearing of a weak Preacher or occasional going to a Popish Chappel which no one imagines makes the Persons Members of such Congregations If therefore Men use this occasional Communion more than once or twice or ten or twenty times as long as they declare it is only occasional communion it makes them no Members of our Churches for that obliges them to fixed and constant Communion Secondly They that have fixed and constant communion in a Church gathered out of another are in a State of Separation from the Church out of which it is gathered although they may be occasionally present in it Now if Men who think our constant communion unlawful Do judge themselves bound to joyn together in another Society for purer administrations as Mr. A. speaks and to choose new Pastors this is gathering new Churches and consequently is a plain Separation from those Churches out of which they are gather'd The Author of the Letter out of the Country speaks plainly in this matter Such saith he of the dissenting Ministers as have most openly declared for communicating at some times with some of the Parochial Churches have also declared their judgment of the lawfulness and necessity of Preaching and Hearing and doing other Religious Duties in other Congregations also If this be true as no doubt that Gentleman well understands their Principles then we see plainly a Separation owned notwithstanding the occasional communion with our Churches For here is not only a lawfulness but a necessity asserted of joyning in Separate Congregations for Preaching Hearing and other Religious Duties And here are all the parts necessary for making New Churches Pastors People and joyning together for Religious Worship in a way separate from our Assemblies For although they allow the lawfulness of occasional communicating with some of them yet they are so far from allowing constant communion that they assert a necessity of separate Congregations for Divine Worship And what was there more then this which the old Separatists held For when they first published the Reasons of their Separation which Giffard Answered they laid down the grounds of their dissatisfaction with our Assemblies from whence they inferred the necessity of Separation and then declare that they only sought the Fellowship and Communion of Gods faithful servants and by the direction of his Holy Spirit to proceed to a choice of new Pastors with whom they might joyn in all the Ordinances of Christ. And what is there in this different from what must follow from the Principles of those who assert the necessity of joyning in other Congregations distinct and separate from our Assemblies for the performance of Religious Duties And if there be a necessity of Separation as this Gentleman tells us they generally hold that seem most moderate the holding the lawfulness of occasional Communion will not excuse them from the guilt of the other For as long as the necessity of Separation was maintained the other was alwayes accounted a less material dispute and some held one way and some another And for this occasional communion the same Author tells us that he looks upon it but as drinking a single glass of Wine or of Water against his own inclination to a person out of Civility when he is not for any Mans pleasure to destroy his health by tying himself to drink nothing else It seems then this occasional communion is a meer Complement to our Churches wherein they force themselves to a dangerous piece of civility much against their own inclinations but they account constant communion a thing pernicious to their Souls as the other is destructive to their health So that this Salvo cannot excuse them from the guilt of Separation Sect. 17. 2. That as far as occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty This the former Gentleman wonders at me if I think a good consequence Mr. A. brings several instances to prove that we allow occasional Communion to be lawful where constant is no duty as with other Parish Churches upon a Iourney at a Lecture c. but who ever question'd the lawfulness of occasional Communion with Churches of the same constitution or thought a Man was bound to be always of that Church where he goes to hear a Lecture c. but the question is about the lawfulness of Separation where occasional Commuon is allowed to be lawful For a man is not said to separate from every Church where he forbears or ceases to have Communion but only from that Church with which he is obliged to hold Communion and yet withdraws from it And it is a wonder to me none of my Friends my Adversaries I am loth to call them could discern this It is lawful saith Mr. B. to have Communion with the French Dutch or Greek Church Must constant Communion therefore with them be a duty Yes if he were obliged
to be a Member of those Churches and thought it lawful to communicate some times constant communion would be a Duty But because this seems so hard to be understood I will therefore undertake to prove it by these Two Arguments First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church Secondly From the particular force of that Text Philipp 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church If it be possible saith St. Paul as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask If there be not as great an obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church as with all Men and they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them And is not that possible and lies in them to do which they acknowledge lawful to be done and can do at some times What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles And cannot these prevail with Men to do that which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do towards joyning in Communion with us This I am perswaded is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority they refused it and they have been more and more backward ever since till now they seem generally resolved either to break all in pieces or to persist in Separation Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this i. e. saith he They did not enter their several Protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them And so they have been advising and considering ever since till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it and the meer necessity of defending their own practices makes them espouse these Principles Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith they had after the Plague and Fire at which they agreed That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy and wronging the Relator by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence viz. When it would not do more harm than good And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place he will find I did consider the force of those words when I put it that they resolved it to be lawful in it self although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it For they declared That it was in it self lawful and meet but the circumstances of that time did make them think it might do more harm than good and therefore it is said They delaid for a fitter opportunity which makes it clear they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing But that opportunity hath never hapned since and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it as Mr. A. plainly doth by such reasons as these Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good 1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable As though Separation were more eligible than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable and Schism were not more intolerable than Communion with a tolerable Church What will not Men say in defence of their own practice Was ever Schism made so light a matter of And the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church were not fit to be put in the ballance against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience Methinks it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate than always thus subtil and witty against the common sence and reason of Mankind 2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches i. e. be drawn off from their Separation 3. When it will harden the Papists As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more 4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general Yes no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so By these particulars it appears that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do Yet at last he saith he tells us as much is done as their Consciences will permit them Say you so Is it indeed come to this Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy or to make use of any parts of it in your own Meetings How often hath Mr. B. told the World That you stuck not at Set-Forms nor at the Vse of the Liturgy provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting publickly in a Writing on purpose That they did not meet under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England and were he able he would accordingly Read himself Is this observed in any one Meeting in London or through England Then certainly there are some who do not what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea That they never made one Motion for Presbytery or against Liturgies and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians And since that Mr. B. saith They did come to an Agreement wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy with some Alterations was required And are we now told That all that can lawfully be done is done Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles in coming to our Liturgy but Where are all the rest And Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies Do they not hereby discover that they are more afraid of losing their People who force them to comply with their humors than careful to do what they judge lawful towards Communion with our Church Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass that any who think
the Alteration of Established Laws which concern the Preservation of our Church and Religion one of the Weightiest things that can be taken into Consideration And although the Arguments are very plausible one way yet the Objections are very strong another The Union of Protestants the Ease of Scrupulous Consciences the providing for so many poor Families of Ejected Ministers are great Motives on our side But 1. The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters 2. The Vncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations 3. The Difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church considering the Vngovernableness of some Mens Tempers and Principles 4. The danger of breaking all in pieces by Toleration 5. The Exposing our selves to the Papists and others by Receding too far from the first Principles and Frame of our Reformation And 6. The Difficulty of keeping out Priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters are very weighty Considerations on the other side So that whatever Men talk of the easiness of taking away the present Impositions it is a sign they look no farther than their own case and do not consider the Strength and Union of a National Settlement and the necessity thereof to keep out Popery and How much easier it is to break things in pieces than to set them in order again for new Objections will still be raised against any Settlement and so the result may be nothing but Disorder and Confusion Of what moment these things may be thought to other persons I know not but they were great enough to me to make me think it very unseasonable to meddle with Establish'd Law 's but on the other hand I could not but think it seasonable to endeavor to remove such Scruples and Prejudices as hindered the People most from Communion with our Churches for as I said in the Epistle before the Sermon If the People be brought to Vnderstand and Practice their Duty as to Communion with our Churches other difficulties which obstruct our Union will more easily be removed This passage Mr A. tells me was the Sport and Entertainment of the Coffeâ—-Houses I confess I am a great Stranger to the Wisdom of those places but I see Mr. A. is able to give me an Account of the Sage Discourses upon Points of Divinity there But if those pleasant Gentlemen would have understood the difference between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity they might have apprehended the meaning of that passage For I am of Opinion if the People once thought themselves bound to do what they may lawfully do towards Communion with us many of the Ministers who seem now most most forward to defend the Separation would think of putting a fairer Construction upon many things than now they do And therefore I thought it fittest to handle the Case of the People who are either over-violent in these matters without ever considering them or have met with ill-instructors who have not faithfully let them know what the terms of Communion as to themselves were For the Scruple of the Surplice seems to be worn out Kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more Iudicious Non-conformists and the only Scruple as to them about the Sign of the Cross is not whether it be lawful for the Minister to use it but whether it be lawful for them to offer their Children to be Baptized where it is used and as Mr. Baxter resolves the case Baptism is Gods Ordinance and his priviledge and the Sin if it be one is the Ministers and not his Another Man 's sinful Mode will not justifie the neglect of our Duty else we might not joyn in any Prayer or Sacrament in which the Minister Modally sinneth that is with none As to the Use of the Liturgy Mr. Baxter saith He that Separateth from all Churches among us on the account of the Unlawfulness of our Liturgy doth Separate from them on a Reason Common to All or almost All Christian Churches upon Earth the thoughts of which he is not able to bear And although the New Impositions he saith makes their Ministerial Conformity harder than formerly yet the Peoples Conformity is the same if not easier by some Amendments of the Liturgy as when Separation was fully confuted by the Old Non-conformists And the most Learned and Worthy of them he saith Wrote more against Separation than the Conformists and the present Non-conformists have not more Wisdom Learning or Holiness than they But he saith they did not only urge the People against Separation but to come to the very beginning of the Publick Worship preferring it before their private Duties What ground was there now to make such a Hideous Out-Cry about a Sermon which perswaded Men to no more than the Old Pious and Peaceable Nonconformists would have done who talked more sharply against the Sin and Mischief of Separation than I have done as may be seen in the First Part of the following Treatise But as if they had been the Papists Instruments to execute the fury of their Wrath and Displeasure against me they Summon in the Power of their Party and resolve with their full might to fall upon me And as if it had not been enough to deal with me by open Force which is more Manly and Generous they made use of mean and base Arts by Scurrilous Rimes by Virulent and Malicious Libels sent to me without Names by Idle Stories and False Suggestions to rob me at once of my Reputation and the Tranquillity of my Mind But I thank God I despised such pittiful Artifices and such Vnmanly and Barbarous Usage which made no other Impression on my mind but to make me understand that other Men could use me as Bad or Worse than the Papists But this brought to my Mind a Passage of Arch-Bishop Whitgift concerning their Predecessors usage of Bishop Jewel after he had so stoutly defended this Church against the Papists But saith he it is their manner except you please their humor in all things though you otherwise deserve never so well all is nothing with them but they will Deprave you Rail on you Backbite you Invent Lies of you and spread False Rumors as though you were the Vilest Persons upon Earth I could hardly have believed so ill a Character of Men pretending to any kind of Religion had I not found so just a parallel abating only the due allowances that must be made as to my Case with respect to the far greater deserts of that incomparable Bishop But notwithstanding all their hard Censures of me I do assure them I am as firm a Protestant as ever I was and should be still as ready to Promote the Interest of the Protestant Religion yea and to do any Real Kindness to the Dissenters themselves that may be consistent with the National Settlement of our Church and the Honor of our Reformation After a while they thought fit to draw their Strength into open Field and the First who appeared against me was Dr. Owen who
Harrison His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown and the Defence of that Admonition When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament viz. Vnlawful Ministry Antichristian Government and False Worship Gifford a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex undertook to Answer them in several Treatises And it is observable that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile Notorious and Damnable Schism because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches and set up New Ones of their own Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks but saith They make a Vile Schism Rending themselves from the Church of England and condemning by their Assertions the Whole Visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time and he adds That the end of Brownism as it was then called is Infinite Schismes Heresies Atheism and Barbarism And the same Author in his Second Book reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People hath these remarkable words Now look also on the People where we may see very many who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues and Godly Duties as namely to be Meek to be Patient to be Lowlie to be full of Love and Mercy to deal Vprightly and Iustly to Guide their Families in the Fear of God with Wholsome Instructions and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them give themselves wholly to this even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion namely to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church against Bishops and Ministers and one against another on both sides Some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher but not to the Prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gone further and fallen into a Damnable Schism and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in these matters But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists appears by his Stating the Question in the same Preface For I shewed saith he in express words that I do not meddle at all in these Questions whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods Word whether they be many or few whether they be small or great but only thus far whether they be such or so great as make our Churches Antichristian Barrow saith That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist and he is joyned with Cartwright Hildersham Brightman and other Non-conformists by the Prefacer to the Desence of Bradshaw against Iohnson and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison Browns Colleague against Separation proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence through his being and placing in a particular Church and justly required of him by the Church or Spiritual Body through that same inforcing Law of the coherence and being together of the parts and members which is the express Ordinance of God So that saith he unless I hold the Congregation whereof I am now disanulled and become no Church of Christ for the not separating an unworthy Member I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises or yet depart away being come together without Breach of the Bond of Peace Sundring the Cement of Love empairing the growth of the Body of Christ and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere Richard Bernard calls it An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of But I need not mention more particular Aâ—thors since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists in the Name of the Non-conformists it is said That because we have a True Church conâ—â—ting of a Lawful Ministery and a Faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation they say We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate as long as they continue in this Schism Sect. 9. But for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie we must consider What things were agreed on both sides and where the Main Points of Difference lay 1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it In their Apology presented to King Iames thus they speak We testifie by these presents unto all Men and desire them to take knowledge hereof that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation between Iohnson and Iacob saith That the first Separatists never denied that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them to be true Christians and in the state of Salvation but always held professed and acknowledged the contrary Barrow saith That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs and deemed them saved notwithstanding the false Offices and great corruptions in the Worship exercised And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death he saith He had Reverend estimation of sundry and good hope of many hundred thousands in England though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church in the present Communion Ministry Worship Government and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies 2. The Separatists granted That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it Thus they express themselves in their Apology Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for blemishes and imperfections which every one according to his Calling should studiously seek to cure and to expect and further it until either there follow redress or the Disease be grown incurable And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith written by Iohnson and Ainsworth they have these words None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and Corruptions which may and so
us From whence there are these things to be considered by us which may be of some use in our following Discourse 1. That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it This I have proved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse that those who deny it may with the help of the same Metaphysicks deny That the Sun shines 2. That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Vnion of the Church to go as far as they were able This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists but by the most rigid Separatists of former times and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful and thought so to be by the persons who Separate is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age but what new Reasons they have for it besides Noise and Clamour I am yet to seek 3. That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled provided that they have used the best means for a right information 4. That where occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them For say they to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn seemeth to be a most unjust Separation 5. That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and downright Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren Sect. 16. From all this it appears that the present practice of Separation can never be justified by the old Non-conformists Principles nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former is clear from undeniable Evidence and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries For although they endeavour all they can to blind the Readers Judgment with finding out the disparity of some circumstances which was never denied yet not one of them can deny that it was their Judgment That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was Vnlawful and Schismatical And this was the point for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon and it still stands good against them For their resolution of the case doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches which must have equal force at all times although there happen a great variety as to some circumstances For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded as to one circumstance or another the general case as to Separation is the same whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation on their Account it comes at last to the same point Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations as the Dissenting Brethren did because of some Scruples of Conscience in them and is it not equally unlawful in others who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead although they relate to different things I will put this case as plain as possible to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience one of them pleads that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy another saith His People do not scruple that but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross or Kneeling at the Communion a third saith If all these were away yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted as to matter and form they must have a Congregation of their own a fourth goes yet farther and saith Let their Congregation be constituted how it will if they allow Infant-Baptism they can never joyn with them nor saith a fifth can we as long as you allow Preaching by set forms and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses and such like Human Inventions Here are now very different scruples of Conscience but Doth the nature of the case vary according to the bare difference of the Scruples One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit is Separation on that account lawful No say all other Parties against the Quakers because their scruples are unreasonable But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism No say the Presbyterians and Independents that is an unreasonable Scruple Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship No saith the Presbyterians this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation and if they can joyn occasionally with us they are bound to do it constantly or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei and not from the meer error or mistake of Conscience But at last the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England and if they do not either they must desire a separate Congregation on the account of their Scruples as to the Ceremonies and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Vnreasonable as they do those of the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers Or else they declare They can joyn occasionally in Communion with our Church but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them with respect to our Church as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren with respect to themselves For no disparity as to other Circumstances can alter the nature of this Case viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what denomination soever the persons pass For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances but in the nature of the Act because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful As will fully appear by the following Discourse Those Men therefore speak most
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
separated from a Church on the account of their Preachers having human learning and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them their answer was That is your judgement and this is ours i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples and therefore must persist in separation or return to Paganism Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth withdraws from their Communion and sets up another Assembly in the Town and upon his obstinate continuance therein was solemnly excommunicated by them And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to time will discover I would only know whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod should proceed to Separation whether this Separation be justifiable or not This is certain that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles and say their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees and if they proceed those Churches may be broken in pieces by these principles of Separation As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countreys most of them were by new Scruples which the People could not conquer for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members and carried away many of them And so they had done in New England and dissolved those Churches before this time if this principle had been allowed there viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples they may proceed to Separation No they tell them they must preserve the Peace of their Churches and if they cannot be quiet among them the world is wide enough for them So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians This I only mention to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their Scruples And upon the same ground not only Anabaptists and Quakers but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations For I suppose this Gentleman will not deny but they may have Scruples too many Scruples and of long standing and among great numbers and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them And by that time all these have set up among us shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation have taken any care to put any stop to it or to let us know where we may fix and see an end of it what scruples are to be allowed and what not and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling and say they cannot conquer their Scruples Are there no Scruples among us but only against the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism and kneeling at the Lords Supper Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper saying they are not to be literally understood Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations and say we can have no true Churches because we renounce Communion with the Pope What is to be done with all these and many more scruplers who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers This I mention because this Gentleman seems to look on it as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. For having spoken of that he addes Nor is it in it self of less weight perhaps 't is of much greater that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children but others must appear and undertake for them which he repeats soon after And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters as any that have come after him in the Admonitions declared that this was a thing arbitrary and left to the discretion of the Church And in his first Answer he saith For the thing it self considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches they do not mislike of it So that on the same ground it seems all oâ—â—er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at as well as ours and yet not only this Gentleman but Mr. B. several times mentions this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us nay he calls this his greatest objection and yet he confesseth that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents our Baptism is valid and lawful Now where is it that our Church excludes such a representation Indeed by Canon 29 the Parents are not to be compelled to be present nor suffered to answer as Susceptors for their Children but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office In the Bohemian Churches there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them and so they may be said to represent the Parents If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉 against the consent of the Parents then none couâ—â— in reason suppose that there was any implicit compact between them But since they are of the Parents choosing what they do in that office is supposed to be with their full consent If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old at some certain seasons only and indispensable occasions required the Parents absence might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence and the intentention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance If men be negligent in doing their duty must the Church bear the blame and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion But there is something beyond this which lies at the bottom of this scruple viz. that the Child 's Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents and therefore if the Parents be excluded and only Sponsors admitted the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism For Mr. B.'s first Question is which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism any more than all
Book which far better deserved the Title of a Plea for Disorder and Separation not without frequent sharp and bitter Reflections on the Constitution of our Church and the Conformity required by Law as though it had been designed on purpose to Represent the Clergy of our Church as a Company of Notorious Lying and Perjured Villains for Conforming to the Laws of the Land and Orders established among us for there are no fewer than 30 Tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity set down in it And all this done without the lest Provocation given on our side when all our Discourses that touched them tended only to Union and the Desirableness of Accommodation If this had been the single Work of one Man his Passion and Infirmities might have been some tolerable excuse for the indiscretion of it but he Writes in the Name of a Whole Party of Men and delivers the Sense of all his Acquaintance and if those Principles be owned and allowed by them there can hardly be expected any such thing as a National Settlement but all Churches must be heaps of Sand which may lie together till a puff of Wind disperses them having no firmer Bond of Vnion than the present humor and good will of the People But of the Principles of that Book I have Discoursed at large as far as concerns the business of Separation in the Second and Third Parts of the following Treatise But as though this had not been enough to shew what Enemies to Peace Men may be under a Pretence of it not long after the same Author sets forth another Book with this Title The true and only Way of Concord of all the Christian Churches As though he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth and were to set the Terms of Peace and War among all Christians but I wish he had shewed himself such a Pattern of Meekness Humility Patience and a Peaceable Disposition that we might not have so much Reason to Dispute his Credentials But this is likewise Fraught with such impracticable Notions and dividing Principles as though his whole design had been to prove That there is No True Way of Concord among Christians for if there be no other than what he allows all the Christian Churches this day in the World are in a mighty mistake When I looked into these Books and saw the Design of them I was mightily concerned and infinitely surprised that a Person of his Reputation for Piety of his Age and Experience in the World and such a Lover of Peace as he had always professed himself and one who tells the World so often of his Dying and of the Day of Judgment should think of leaving two such Firebrands behind him as both these Books will appear to any one who duely considers them which have been since followed by 4 or 5 more to the same purpose so that he seems resolved to leave his Life and Sting together in the Wounds of this Church And it made me extremely pity the case of this poor Church when even those who pretend to Plead for Peace and to bring Water to quench her Flames do but add more Fuel to them This gave the first occasion to those thoughts which I afterwards delivered in my Sermon for since by the means of such Books the zeal of so many People was turned off from the Papists against those of our Church I saw a plain necessity that either we must be run down by the Impetuous Violence of an Enraged but Vnprovoked Company of Men or we must venture our selves to try whether we could stem that Tide which we saw coming upon us And it falling to my Lot to Preach in the most publick Auditory of the City at a more than usual Appearance being the first Sunday in the Term I considered the Relation I stood in under our Honored Diocesan to the Clergy of the City and therefore thought my self more obliged to take notice of what concerned the Peace and Welfare of the Churches therein Upon these Considerations I thought fit to take that opportunity to lay open the due sense I had of the Unreasonableness and Mischief of the Present Separation Wherein I was so far from intending to reflect on Mr. B. as Preaching in the Neighborhood of my Parish that to my best remembrance I never once thought of it either in the making or Preaching of that Sermon And yet throughout his Answer he would insinuate That I had scarce any one in my eye but himself His Books indeed had made too great an Impression on my Mind for me easily to forget them But it was the great the Dangerous the Vnaccountable Separation which I knew to be in and about the City without regard to the Greatness or Smallness of Parishes to the Abilities or Piety of their Ministers or to the Peace and Order of the Church we live in which made me fix upon that Subject although I knew it to be so sore a place that the Parties most concerned could hardly endure to have it touched though with a Soft and Gentle hand However I considered the Duty which I owe to God and this Church above the esteem and good words of Peevish and Partial Men as I had before done in my dealing with the Papists and I resolved to give them no Iust Provocation by Reproachful Language or Personal Reflections but if Truth and Reason would Anger them I did not hold my self obliged to study to please them But against this whole Vndertaking there have been two common Objections First That it was Unseasonable Secondly That it was too Sharp and Severe To both these I shall Answer First As to the Unseasonableness of it What! Was it Unseasonable to perswade Protestants to Peace and Unity That surely is very seasonable at any time and much more then And I appeal to any one that Reads it whether this were not the chief and only Design of my Sermon And to say This was Unseasonable is just as if a Garrison were besieg'd by an Enemy and in great danger of being surprised and although they had frequent notice of it given them yet many of the Soldiers were resolved not to joyn in a common body under Command of their Officers but would run into Corners a few in a Company and do what they list and one should undertake to perswade them to return to their due obedience and to mind the Common Interest and some Grave by-standers should say It is true this is good Counsel at another time but at this present it is very Unseasonable When could it be more seasonable than when the sence of their danger is greatest upon them At another time it might have been less necessary but when the common danger is apparent to all Men of Sense or common ingenuity could not but take such advice most kindly at such a season But this advice was not given to themselves but to the Magistrates and Judges and that made it look like a design to stir them
up to a persecution of them There had been some color for this if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon and never intend to read it and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it They resolved to condemn it and therefore would see nothing that might have alter'd their Sentence It is enough it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters Noâ—e are so incapable of Conviction as those who presently determine what a thing must be without considering what it is Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before great Generals Which is just as reasonable as to suppose that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon it self for their own satisfaction But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present It seems they soon heard enough of it by the Noise and Clamor they made about it Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists for us to quarrel among our selves Would to God this advantage had never been given them And Woe be to them by whom these offences come And what must we do Must we stand still with open Arms and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us Must we suffer our selves to be run down with a Popular fury raised by Reviling Books and Pamphlets and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication lest the Papists should overhear us Which is as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny for fear the Enemy should take notice and make some advantage of it But which will be the greater advantage to him to see it spread and increase or care taken in time to suppress it If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active and busie than formerly if they had not both by publick Writings and secret Insinuations gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church and the Members of it so disingenuously as they have done there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon But when those things were notorious to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then or now to defend it is in effect to tell us they may say and do what they will against us at all seasons but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable Which under favor seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side for it is like setting us in the Pillory for them to throw dirt at us without allowing us any means to defend our Selves But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it But Wherein doth it lie Not in raking into old Sores or looking back to the proceedings of former times Not in exposing the particular faults of some Men and laying them to the charge of the whole Party Not in sharp and provoking reflections on Mens Persons All these I purposely and with care declined My design being not to exasperate any but to perswade and argue them into a better disposition to Union by laying open the common danger we are in and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists by another that indeed I do not bespeak for them Gibbets Whipping-posts and Dungeons nor directly any thing grievous to their flesh but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them in respect of their Everlasting State God forbid that I should Iudge any one among them as to their present sincerity or final condition to their own Master they must stand or fall but my business was to consider the nature and tendency of their Actions My Iudgment being that a causless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it and herein having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern Would they have had me represented that as no sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it or Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessen'd their sense of it No I had seen too much of this already and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men otherwise scrupulous and conscientious that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin as if there neither were nor could be any such thing unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation Which is so mean so jejune so narrow a Notion of Schism so much short of that Care of the Churches Peace which Châ—ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfy'd with it unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings And that I confess is a shrew'd temptation But so far as I can judge as far as the Obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism â—each and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace which is as far as is possible and as much as lies in us Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it is directly the Sin of Schism or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church And this is not to be determined by Mens fancies and present apprehensions which they call the Dictates of Conscience but upon plain and evident grounds manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion than joyn in the practice of such things We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome than they have against ours and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them if we had no better grounds to proceed upon than they
as to the Sign of the Cross as it is used in our Church notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament and I know not what but of this at large in the following Treatise 2 I see no ground for the Peoples separation from other Acts of Communion on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act as the Cross in Baptism is not and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper as is in the Rubrick after the Communion 3 Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a freedom in joyning in full Communion with us which may be done either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross or if that may give offence to others by confining the use of it to the publick administration of Baptism or by leaving it indifferent as the Parents desire it As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper since some Posture is necessary and many devout People scruple any other and the Primitive Church did in antient times receive it in the Posture of Adoration there is no Reason to take this away even in Parochial Churches provided that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it with the least offence to others and rather standing than sitting because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other And as to Cathedral Churches there is no necessity of alteration But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism viz. the Use of God-fathers and God-mothers excluding the Parents Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples either by permitting the Parents to joyn with the Sponsors or by the Parents publickly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism or which seems most agreeable to Reason that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part representing the Child and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors These things being allowed I see no obstruction remaining as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us in all Acts of Divine Worship and Christian Communion as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful 2. But because there are many of those who are become zealous Protestants and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine although they cannot joyn with us in Worship because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies and the right constitution of our Churches their case deserves some consideration whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us To their Case I answer First That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us and in the end Popery as I have shewed already and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration Secondly If any present Favours be granted to such in consideration of our circumstances and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists for a general Toleration for if ever the Papists obtain it it must be under their Name if I say such favour be thought fit to be shewed them it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches by their declaring that our Churches are no true Churches that our Manner of Worship is unlawful and that our Church-Government is Antichristian and that on these accounts they separate from us and worship God by themselves But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted I humbly offer these things to consideration 1. That none be permitted to enjoy the priviledge of it who do not declare that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations 2. That all who enjoy it besides taking the Test against Popery do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith because the pretence of this Liberty is joyning with us in Points of Faith and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them 3. That all such as enjoy it must declare the particular Congregations they are of and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose that so this may be no pretence for idle loose and profane persons never going to any Church at all 4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties if they use any bitter or reproachful words either in Sermons or Writings against the established Constitution of our Churches because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences and the using this liberty will discover it is not Conscience but a turbulent factions humour which makes them separate from our Communion 5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches lest meer covetousness tempt Men to run among them and no persons so indulged be capable of any publick Office It not being reasonable that such should be trusted with Government who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful 6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which ought to be duly collected for the Vse of the Poor and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it 7. That the Bishops as Visitors appointed by Law have an exact Account given to them of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations with their Qualities and Places of Abode and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion by giving satisfaction to their scruples This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law 8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed
long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men will fall out and arise among them even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof But in the case of our Church they pleaded that the Corruptions were so many and great as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church So Barrow saith They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election or from Christ but from being Members of a True Constituted Church On the other side the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary or lawful So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions 1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrew the being or constitution of it 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversie 1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it Barrow and his Brethren did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separation unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches For here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be Want of a right gathering our Churches at first False Worship Antichristian Ministery and Government These Reasons say they all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate especially when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied but resisted blasphemed persecuted These are the words of the First and Chiefest Separatists who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles We condemn not say they their Assemblies barely for a mixture of good and bad which will alwayes be but for want of an orderly gathering or constitution at first we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry but for having and reteining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government or Discipline but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections but because their Worship is Superstitious devised by Men Idolatrous according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book according unto which their Sacraments and whole Administration is performed and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well that nothing but such a Charge which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound could justifie their Separation not meer promiscuous Congregations nor mixt Communions not defect in the Exercise of Discipline not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church as they supposed Idolatrous Worship and an Antichristian Ministry to do If Mr. Giffard saith Barrow can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches then we would shew him how free we are from Schism The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames by Ainsworth Iohnson and the rest of them Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God ought not by any true Christian to be continued or Communicated with but must be forsaken and separated from and a true Church sought and ioyned unto c. But the Church of England is before proved not to be the true Church of Christ and of God therefore it ought to be separated from c. By which we see the Greatest Separatists that were then never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches if they were true On the other side those who opposed the Separation with greatest zeal thought nothing more was necessary for them to disprove the Separation then to prove our Churches to be true Churches R. Brown from whom the Party received their denomination thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright the Ringleader of the Non-conformists to prove the Necessity of Separation because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here he made our Church not to be a true Church and consequently that Separation was necessary T. C. Answers That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing as giveth an utter overthrow and turning upside down of the truth His meaning is wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church or Iustifie Separation from it For he addeth although besides Faith in the Son of God there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being and not simply to the being of the Church And in this respect saith he the Lutheran Churches which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies which beside the maym of Discipline which is common to our Churches are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God Was not Jerusalem saith he after the Return from Babylon the City of the Great King until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City To say therefore it is none of the Church because it hath not received this Discipline methinks is all one with this as if a Man would say It is no City because it hath no Wall or that it is no Vineyard because it hath neither Hedge nor Ditch It is not I grant so sightly a City or Vineyard nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church his Defender saith He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church with respect to Censures but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People Afterwards as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation their main Business was To Prove our Churches to be True Churches As in a Book Entituled Certain Positions hâ—ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of
4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Consent of the Christian Magistrate and Governors of the Church Nay they declare that in so doing they should highly offend God Giffard saith That the Fetters and Chains can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience and the Fear of God from presuming to take upon them Publick Authority And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together and choose a Minister and Ordain him it would make him no more a Minister before God then if all the Apprentices in London taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor and Minister an Oath unto him should make him a Lord Mayor But of this more afterwards V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under as they speak an Antichristian Hierarchy To which they Answer First They deny that our Bishops can be called Antichristian since they do and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Fundamental yea some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks that have gainsay'd it some have not only by their Doctrine and Ministry Converted many to the Truth but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel Secondly Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke which they deny yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church or Miâ—istry under it Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches have frequently born such a Yoke and yet have been the True Churches of God still Thirdly That there is nothing unlawful or Antichristian in the Office of Bishops if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners to see that the Pastors do their Duties And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church to cast many particular Churches under one Provincial or Diocesan Government Yea Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this not only lawful but expedient to that degree that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches within his Dominions without it as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them this saith he doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do and by the Laws cought to do These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness from the Authors of best reputation on both sides that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation between the Old Non-conformists and the Separatists of that time Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie by those who were called Independents and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism or rigid Separation And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation or the Steps by which it was carried on and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way and what the True State of the Difference was between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren and how far the Reasons then used will hold against the present Separation When those who were called Brownists for the fâ—eer Exercise of their new Church way withdrew into the Low-Countreys they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves A. D. 1582. Robert Brown accompanied with Harrison a School-Master and about 50 or 60 Persons went over to Middleburgh and there they chose Harrison Pastor and Brown Teacher They had not been there Three Months but upon the falling out between Brown and Harriâ—on Brown forsakes them and returns for England and Subscribes promising to the Archbishop To live Obediently to his Commands Concerning whom Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause Mr. Brown hath cast us off and that with open manifest and notable Treacheries and if I should declare them you could not believe me Only this I testifie unto you that I am well able to prove That Cain dealt not so ill with his Brother Abel as he hath dealt with me Some of the words of Browns Subscription were these I do humbly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment whose Authority under Her Majesty I wâ—ll never resist or deprave by the Grace of God c. But being a Man of a Restless and Factious Temper no Promises or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered For although he promised to frequent our Churches and to come to Prayers and Sacraments yet living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years in all that time he never did it and when he was like to have been question'd for it he withdrew into another Parish Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons but that he accounted no act of Communion and declared to his Friends That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do Notwithstanding this he Preached in Private Meetings and that in the time of Publick Assemblies when he thought fit Which this Author though a Non-conformist and Friend of T. Cs calls a Cursed Conventicle who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings and Iesuitical Aequivocations in his Subscription By the Bishops Authority he said he meant only his Civil Authority by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God he understood the Church of his own setting up by frequenting our Assemblies according to Law he meant the Law of God and not of the Land he declared his Child was Baptized according to Law but then told his Followers it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton of New England hath this passage concerning Brown The first Inventor of that way which is called Brownism from whom the Sect took its Name fell back from his own way to take a Parsonage called Iâ—ourcâ— God so in a strange yet wise Providence ordering it that he who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England as no Church should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them and it called A Church But upon the Dissention at Middleborough between Brown and Harrison that Congregation soon broke to pieces Ainsworth cannot deny the early Dissentions between Brown and Harrison Brown and Barrow Barrow and Fr. Iohnson but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs notwithstanding as Dr. O. well observes We are to distinguish
of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
intended in Silencing of them But our Churches whereof we are Ministers are no private and secret Assemblies such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State but are publick professing their Worship and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his Countenance Authority and Protection and we are set over those Churches not only by a Calling of our People but also by the Authority of the Magistrate who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some If therefore after our publick calling to Minister to such a known and Publick Church not by the Church only but by the Magistrate also the Magistrate shall have matter against us whether just or unjust it skilleth not and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate or to oppose Sword to Sword And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly and against the will of the Church and should therein sin yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate neither doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister how great and deserving soever to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate by leaving her publick standing to follow his Ministery in private and in the dark refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy 4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath by Gods Word in such a case so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live when in some competent measure they may publickly with the grace and favor of the Magistrate enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another and except he have a calling to Minister in some Church he is to be content to live as a private member till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him and to call him again to his own Church labouring mean while privately upon particular occasions offered to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God those People that are deprived of his publick Labour And I take it to be the duty of the People in such a Case if they will approve themselves faithful Christians and good Subjects so to submit to the Ministery of another as that by Prayer and all other good dutiful and loyal means they may do their best endeavor to obtain him of whom against their will they have been deprived and still to affect and love him as their Pastor now if the People do thus then is that Minister called to be Silent not only by the Magistrate but by them also though with much grief To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw all that Mr. B. saith is That Bradshaw thought we should submit to a Silencing Law where our Ministery was unnecessary and so doth he If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes he would never have given such an Answer as this For Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity or no necessity of their Preaching but upon the allowance or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time than there is now when himself confesseth several years since That Thirty years ago there were many bare Reading not Preaching Ministers for one that there is now And what was there which the old Non-conformists more complained of than the want of a more Preaching Ministery This then could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason and Mr. Baxter upon second thoughts cannot be of that opinion I have yet one Argument more to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation Which is that where two Duties do meet a greater and a less whereof both cannot be done at the same time the lesser duty must yield unto the greater but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming teacheth and the practice thereof causeth to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine and a Sin in Practice The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose That Ministers deprived by Law are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law 's And to confirm this several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument and to give an account of the disparity of the case as to the Apostles times and ours For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground to which they Answer That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do because their Ministery was of far greater excellency and usefulness and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles than it could be with them For say they What one Minister of the Gospel is there that dare be so presumptuous as to say That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity and use for the Glory of God and good of his Church as was the Ministery of his Apostles The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles viz. the planting of the Church and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations was such as could not have been performed by any other but the Apostles alone but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity there is no such danger and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined though they Preach not the Gospel is Preached still and that soundly and fruitfully Did these Men think the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel did reach to their case Can Mr. B. imagine that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach although they were silenced by our Laws And now I hope I have proved that to be evidently True which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false But if after all this Mr. B. will persist in saying That he knew those who did otherwise all that I have to say to it is That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance both of the one and the other Party if they were such as he represents are not to be the Standard for all the rest for it seems he was not very happy in either PART
capable to receive the Inhabitants For this I find insisted on by almost all my Answerers Some Parishes saith one cannot receive a tenth part some not half the People belonging to them few can receive all The Parochial Teacher saith another is overlaid with a numerous throng of People The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City saith a third And yet not one of these but assignes such reasons for the necessity of Separate Congregations as would equally hold if there were never a Church in London but what would hold all the Inhabitants together This is therefore but a color and pretence and no real Cause Any one would think by Mr. Baxter's insisting so very much on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations this were his opinion that such Congregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes where they are helps to the Parochial Churches And no Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government where upon pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification the People are not drawn into Separation But is it possible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them and the Laws Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster because it is a very large Parish Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at Boston because there were but three Churches there to receive all the numerous Inhabitants If such a number of Churches could be built as were suitable to the greatness and extent of Parishes we should be so far from opposing it that we should be very thankful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work but in the mean time Is this just and reasonable to draw away the People who come to our Churches under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come For upon consideration we shall find 1. That this is Mr. Baxter's own case For if we observe him although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands that cannot come into the Temples many of which never heard a Sermon of many years and to this purpose he put so many Quaere 's to me concerning the largeness of Parishes and the necessity of more Assistants thereby to insinuate That what he did was only to Preach to such as could not come to our Churches yet when he is pinch'd with the point of Separation then he declares That his hearers are the same with ours at least 10 or 20 for one and that he knows not many if any who use to hear him that Separate from us If this be true as no doubt Mr. B. believes it then what such mighty help or assistance is this to our great Parishes What color or pretence is there from the largeness of them that he should Preach to the very same persons who come to our Churches And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Parishes where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches Then how come they to be lawful where few or none of those many thousands ever come at all but they are filled with the very same Persons who come to our Parish Churches These two pretences then are inconsistent with each other and one of them cannot hold For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches and scarce to any else iâ— any as Mr. B. supposes then all the pretence from the largeâ—ess of our Parishes and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches is vain and impertinent and to Speak Softly not becoming Mr. Baxter's sincerity 2. That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case viz. That he Preached only to such as could not come to our Churches it would be no defence of the general practice of Dissenters who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes As if it were necessary might be proved by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City and in the adjacent Parishes Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not if not Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them if they be Why doth he pâ—etend the greatness of Parishes to justifie Separate Mâ—etings when if they were never so small they would be lawful however This therefore must be set aside as a meeâ— color and pretence which he thought plausible for himself and invidious to us though the bounds of our Parishes were neâ—ther of our own making nor is it in our power to alter them And we shall find that Mr. B. doth justifie them upon other grounds which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes or capacity of Churches I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some duties at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties or at all times These things must be more particulary explained for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Separation Which proceeds not so openly and plainly as the old Separation did but hath such artificial windings and turnings in it that a Man thinks they are very near our Church when they are at a great distance from it If we charge them with following the steps of the old Separatists we utterly deny it for say they For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches they disowned your Ministery and Hierarchy as Antichristian and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous but we do none of these things and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation To which I Answer 1. There are many still especially of the People who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions and the Defence of it and elsewhere Where he complains of their Violence and Censoriousness their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors and forcing others to forsake their own judgments to comply with their humors And he saith A sinful humoring of rash Professors is as great a Temptation to them as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World In another place he saith The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them but they declare they would be gone from them if they do use them And he doth not dissemble that they do comply with them in these remarkable words Should the Ministers in London that have suffer'd so long but use any part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms though without
Commonâ—ties and bonds on the account of their greater attainments nor to Separate from others as meaner and lower Christians because they are not come up to that perfection which you have attained to And so either way it contains an excellent Rule and of admirable use to the Christian Church not only at that time but in all Ages of the World viz. That those who cannot be fully satisfied in all things should go as far as they can towards preserving Peace and Communion among Christians and not peevishly separate and divide the Church because they cannot in all things think as others do nor others on the account of greater sanctity and perfection despise the inferior sort of Christians and forsake their Communion but they ought all to do what lies possibly in them to preserve the bonds of Peace and the Vnity of the Church Thirdly How far this Rule hath an influence on our case 1. It follows from hence that as far as Communion is lawful it is a duty since as far as they have attained they are to walk by the same Rule And so much Dr. O. doth not deny when he saith Those who are agreed in the Substantials of Religion or in the Principles of Faith and Obedience should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things forbearing one another in the the things wherein they differ Then as far as they agree they are bound to joyn together whether it be as to Opinion or Communion Because the obligation to Peace and Vnity must especially reach to Acts of Christian Communion as far as that is judged to be lawful 2. That the best Christians are bound to Vnite with others though of lower attainments and to keep within the same Rule which is a general expression relating to the bounds of a Race and so takes in all such Orders which are lawful and judged necessary to hold the Members of a Christian Society together But saith Dr. O. Let the Apostles Rule be produced with any probability of proof to be his and they are all ready to subscribe and conform unto it This is the Apostles Rule to go as far as they can and if they can go no farther to sit down quietly and wait for farther instruction and not to break the Peace of the Church upon present dissatisfaction nor to gather new Churches out of others upon supposition of higher attainments If the Rule reach our Case saith he again it must be such as requires things to be observed as were never divinely appointed as National Churches Ceremonies and Modes of Worship And so this Rule doth in order to Peace require the observation of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are enjoyned by lawful Authority provided they be not unlawful in themselves nor repugnant to the World of God But the Apostles never gave any such Rules themselves about outward Modes of Worship with Ceremonies Feasts Fasts Liturgies c. What then It is sufficient that they gave this general Rule That all lawful things are to be done for the Churches Peace And without this no Vnity or Order can be preserved in Churches The Apostles saith he gave Rules inconsistent with any determining Rule viz. of mutual forbearance Rome 14. And herein the Apostle acted not upon meer Rules of Prudence but as a Teacher divinely inspired That he was Divinely inspired I do not question but even such a one may determine a case upon present circumstances which resolution may not always bind when the circumstances are changed For then the meaning of the Apostle must be that whatever differences happen among Christians there must be no determination either way But the direct contrary to this we find in the Decree of the Apostles at Ierusalem upon the difference that happened in the Christian Churches And although there was a very plausible pretence of the obligation of Conscience one way yet the Apostles made a determination in the case contrary to their Judgment Which shews that the Rule of Forbearance where Conscience is alledged both wayes is no standing Rule to the Christian Church but that the Governors of it from Parity of Reason may determine those things which they judge to conduce most to the Peace and Welfare of that Church which they are bound to preserve And from hence it appears how little Reason there is for Dr. O's Insinuation as though the false Apostles were the only Imposers whereas it is most evident that the true Apostles made this peremptory Decree in a matter of great consequence and against the pretence of Conscience on the other side But saith Dr. O. further The Iewish Christians were left to their own liberty provided they did not impose on others and the Dissenters at this day desire no more than the Gentile Churches did viz. not to be imposed upon to observe those things which they are not satisfied it is the mind of Christ should be imposed upon them I Answer 1. It was agreed by all the Governors of the Christian Church that the Iewish Christians should be left to their own liberty out of respect to the Law of Moses and out of regard to the Peace of the Christian Church which might have been extremely hazarded if the Apostles had presently set themselves against the observing the Iewish Customs among the Iews themselves 2. The false Apostles imposing on the Gentile Christians had two Circumstances in it which extremely alter their case from that of our present Dissenters For 1. They were none of their lawful Governors but went about as Seducers drawing away the Disciples of the Apostles from them 2. They imposed the Iewish Rites as necessary to Salvation and not as meerly indifferent things And therefore the case of our Dissenters is very different from that of the Gentile Christians as to the Impositions of the false Apostles Thus I have considered every thing material in Dr. O. which seems to take off the force of the Argument drawn from this Text. The Author of the Letter saith 1. That I ought to have proved that the Apostles meant some Rule superadded to the Scriptures and 2. That other Church-Guides had the same Power as the Apostles had But what need all this If it appear 1. That the Apostles did give binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scriptures as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. So that either the Scripture is an imperfect Rule for omitting some Divine Rules or else these were only Prudential Rules of Order and Government 2. That it is a standing Rule of Scripture that Men are bound to do all lawful things for the Peace of the Church And this I have shewed was the Apostles design in the words of this Text. Sect. 20. Others pretend that the Apostle means no more by these words but that Christians must live up to their knowledge and mind that one thing This is a very new Exposition and the Author of it intends
yet the more heinous `that it is commonly father'd upon God Lastly that it is most unlike the Heavenly State and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil for he would not destroy it by dividing it against it self Remember now saith he that Schism and making Parties and Divisions in the Church is not so small a Sin as many take it for I conclude this with his Admonition to Bag shaw upon his lessening the Sin of Separation Alass dear Brother that after so many years Silencing and Affliction after Flames and Plagues and Dreadful Iudgments after Twenty years Practice of the Sin it self and when we are buried in the Ruines which it caused we should not yet know that our own Vncharitable Divisions Alienations and Separations are a Crying Sin Yea the Crying Sin as well as the Vncharitableness and Hurtfulness of others Alass Will God leave us also even us to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh Doth not Iudgment begin with us Is there not Crying Sin with us What have we done to Christ's Kingdom to this Kingdom to our Friends dead and alive to our selves and alass to our Enemies by our Divisions And Do we not feel it Do we not know it Is it to us even to us a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance Woe to us Into what Hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves Yea that we should continue and Passionately defend it When will God give us Repentance unto Life Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously and then consider Whether he can go on to Excuse and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM But it may be said That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively with enslaving our Iudgments and Consciences to others which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle and he saith This is a Medicine worse than the Poyson even as 't is much better to have a Rational Soul though subject to Mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong bit and bridle To make it plain that he makes little or nothing of the Sin of Separation we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer which was That if it be lawful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is agreed in our Case then a bare difference of Opinion as to some circumstances of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient Ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of Mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to farther Separation Where we see plainly the inconvenience urged is endless Separation Doth he set any kind of bounds to it No but only talkes of inconsiderable and petty inconveniencies and some little trouble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will â—his is the worst of it and he must grant that though Separation be endless there is no harm in it But he that could find out a medium between Circumstances of Worship and Substantials can find out none between endless Separation and the enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences for he supposes one of the two must of necessity be Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists For this is their Argument Either we must give up our Iudgments and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides or there will be endless Separation He grants the consequence and cries What then It is nothing but the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and this is much rather to be chosen than the other But any sound Protestant that understands the State of the Controversie between us and them as this Author apparently doth not will presently deny the Consequence because a prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together and leaping over Hedge and Ditch being kept within no bounds And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Principle of enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure and if he doth not suppose it his Discourse is frivolous and impertiâ—â—â—t For a due submission to the Rules of our established Church without any force on the Consciences of Men as to the Infallibility of Guides or necessity of the things themselves will put a sufficient stop to Separation which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions Sect. 28. 5. Lastly I Argue against this Separation from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men who it may be will little regard other inconveniences if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God Which I now undertake to prove upon these Suppositions 1. That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church For it is not possible to suppose that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men with plainer Precepts and stronger Arguments than this is The places are so many that it were endless to repeat them and therefore needless because this is agreed on all hands So that violation of the Vnity of the Church where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden But it happens here as it doth in the other case that as Murder is always a sin but there may be some circumstances which may make the taking away a Mans life not to be Murder so it may happen that though Schism be always a sin yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism but then they must be such Reasons as are not fetched from our Fancies no more than in the case of Murder but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law For he only that made the Law can except from it 2. The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church For although the former be a duty yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian which is to joyn together as Members of the same Body And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church it is said The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are
he hopes it will not be made a Rule that Communion may not be withheld so the sense must be although not be left out or withdrawn from any Church in any thing so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed But as long as he grants that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them Not but that I think there may be a separation without sin from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church but then I say the reason of such separation is some heinous Errour in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some tyranny over the Consciences of men which may not be such as to destroy true Baptism and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter 2. He answers That they do not say that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ hath instituted that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them it is the duty of them who doe so to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation To which I reply that This is either not to the business or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency For wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our Church was required of them But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches And then I intreat him to tell me what difference there is between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches Is not this the primary reason of Separation because Christ hath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church which we are bound to observe and which are not observed in Parochial Churches Indeed the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution but the primary ground is that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed Let us then 1. suppose that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation so qualified and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church and choose their Officers who are to Teach and Admonish and Administer Sacraments and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation And let us 2. suppose such a Church not yet gathered but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes 3. Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church 4. Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members neither the aëreal sign of the Cross nor kneeling at the Communion c. I desire then to know whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church according to Christ's Institution Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules and the Institution of Christ or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church which is the true Cause of their separation but such Reasons as are common to all Churches that are not formed just after their own model If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches those must be observed and separation made in order to it and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way But this was a necessary piece of art at this time to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party and to make them believe if they can be so forgetfull that they do not own separation from their Churches but onely from ours the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days that they must be forgetfull indeed who do not remember it Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments Hath Dr. O. yielded that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon they would give over separation Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration would they not have continued their Separation Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation when it is notoriously otherwise and they did separate and form their Churches upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches This is more artificial than ingenuous Sect. 2. As to the Second Dr. O. answers that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact and so necessary from the nature of the thing that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations that many wise men wholly unconcerned in our Controversies do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute And for this two Testimonies are alleged of Iustice Hobart and Father Paul but neither of them speaks to the point All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles and after to other Pastours Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin it signifies so very little to the purpose or rather quite overthrows his Hypothesis as appears by these two Arguments 1. Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles which he calls voluntary Congregations 2. Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease were no particular Congregations in one City but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks were such for he saith they first
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter And here the main Controversie lies between us and the Congregational Churches Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter then it follows as much from the nature of the thing that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons every single Congregation ought not to engross Church-power to it self but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace And I cannot yet see by all that hath been said how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism how great and intolerable soever it be thought As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila and Nymphas and Philemon I say that this is to be understood not of a Church meeting in their Houses but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say most of our Divines are of that Opinion and therefore the Argument holds against them And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before what obligation of Conscience can be upon any when they may serve God in their Families in opposition to Laws to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them For 1. he grants that a Church may be in a Family although a Family as such be not a Church Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church for a Church he saith may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Family Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion especially when the addition of four more may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church 2. All that he saith is that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families And what then the Question is not now whether they be lawfull but whether they be necessary for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law but where is that Command Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches as his great Rule in these cases But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families All that he saith further as to this matter is that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance which in this case amounts to separation But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land and much more before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them All men no doubt that ever broke Laws if this Plea would be admitted would transfer the blame upon those that made them And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull In my Sermon as it is printed I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter That to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted 1. He saith Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority and imposed in such a manner that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies and consequently affords a better plea for Separation But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning I will set down his own Cautions 1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop if he hath Curates under him This he calls Parochial Episcopacy 2. Nor whether these should have Archbishops over them as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office 3. Nor whether Partriarchs Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull as Officers of the King exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit 4. Nor if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them You will ask then where lies this horrible imposition and intolerable usurpation It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making which according to Mr. B. requires two things 1. Local and presential Communion as he calls it i.e. That it consists onely of so many as can well meet together for Church Society 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours which being taken away they are onely Curates and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church I shall undertake these three things 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new
committed to the Presbyters Preaching and Administration of Sacraments required of them and the exercise of Discipline as far as belongs to them of which afterwards but now in the Consecration of a Bishop this part is left out and instead of that it is said That he is called to the Government of the Church and he is required to correct and punish such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous in his Diocese So that the more particular charge of Souls is committed to every Pastour over his own Flock and the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop as that which especially belongs to his Office as distinct from the other Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be considered viz. What Authority the Bishop hath by virtue of his Consecration in this Church And that I say is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority which lies in three things Government Ordination and Censures And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office I shall make appear by these things 1. In the Preface before the Book of Ordination it is said That it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authours that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons What is the reason that they express it thus from the Apostles time rather than in the Apostles times but that they believed while the Apostles lived they managed the affairs of Government themselves but as they withdrew they did in some Churches sooner and in some later as their own continuance the condition of the Churches and the qualification of Persons were commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto Of which we have an uncontroulable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist and all their removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few But as they went off so they came to be settled in their several Churches And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the different Testimonies of Antiquity For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Saint Cyprian and others are so plain hereby room is left to make good all that Saint Ierom hath said and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at first So that we may allow for the Community of names between Bishop and Presbyter for a while in the Church i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves but afterwards that which was then part of the Apostolical Office became the Episcopal which hath continued from that time to this by a constant succession in the Church 2. Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church As for this part of the Apostles function saith he to visit such Churches as were before planted and to provide that such were placed in them as were vertuous and godly Pastours I know it remaineth still and is one of the chief parts of the Bishops function And again there is now no planting of Churches nor going through the whole world there is no writing of new Gospels no prophesying of things to come but there is Governing of Churches visiting of them reforming of Pastours and directing of them which is a portion of the Apostolical function Again Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is ceased yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City by moderating and Governing them by visiting the Churches by cutting off schisms and contentions by ordering Ministers remaineth still and shall continue and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops as most meet men to execute the same Bishop Bilson fully agrees as to these particulars 1. That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands 2. That upon experience of the confusion and disorder which did arise through equality of Pastours did appoint at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops 3. That these Bishops did succeed the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches as he proves at large and therefore he calls their function Apostolick Instead of many others which it were easie to produce I shall onely add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason In his third Paper to Henderson he hath these words Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be always so it is in the Apostles times now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour In his first Paper at the Treaty at Newport he thus states the case about Episcopal Government I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God and of an Apostolical Institution as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successours therein as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines he saith that meer Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis onely they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching Administration of Sacraments publick Prayer Exhorting Rebuking c. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis Pastorum too having the oversight of Flock and Pastours within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government And that although the Apostles had no Successours in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraordinary in them as namely the Measure of their Gifts the extent of their charge the infallibility of their Doctrine and the having seen Christ in the flesh but in those things that were not extraordinary and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times as the Office of Teaching and the Power of Governing are they were to have and had Successours and therefore the learned and godly Fathers
and confusion will follow if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith without being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority Which is all one as to suppose that every Family may govern it self because a Kingdom is made up of Families without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom No saith Dr. O. the case is not the same For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations But God by the Light and Law of Nature by the ends and use of the Creation of man by express Revelation in his Word hath by his own Authority appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government So say I that God by the Light and Law of Reason by the ends and use of a Christian Society by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations For if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment so in the case of Churches since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant settle and govern Churches and set up Rulers in them but still under their Authority can any thing be plainer than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves But as in the former case if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions and to have placed them in convenient Seats and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint and as they found themselves decaying should nominate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours Without breaking in pieces into so many Families every Master governing his family by himself which would certainly ruin and destroy them all because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves So it is again in the case of Churches The Apostles planted them and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them still reserving the main care of Government to themselves but giving excellent Rules of Charity Peace Obedience and Submission to Governours and as they withdrew from particular Churches within such a precinct as Crete was they appointed some whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them and therefore in this case here is no more independency in particular Congregations than in the other as to private Families which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians and their mutual preservation and defence as in the former case In which we believe the civil Government to be from God although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles when the matter of fact is attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses Lastly as in the former case several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security and become one Kingdom so in the latter case several Bishops with the Churches under them might for promoting the common ends of Christianity and the Peace and establishment of their Churches joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church which being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping upon the Rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed as an universal Pastour must doe will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is Which I therefore mention that any one may see that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction for the Nature of the thing it self and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches is sufficient for it And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches viz. What the nature of a Christian Society and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require For whatever tends to the support of Religion to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions from the very nature of the thing and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it It being then taken for granted among all Christians 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it We may reasonably infer that whatever tends to promote this Vnion and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it is within the design of the first Institution although it be not contained in express words Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith Government and Worship be the more likely way to promote Religion to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason as to these ends In the Congregational way there may be as many Religions as Churches I do not say there are but we are arguing now upon what may be from the nature of the thing Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians another of Papists another of Arians another of Quakers another of Anabaptists c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind But if they be it is meer chance and good hap there being no obligation upon them to have any more
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
attribute Iustification to the Sacraments and the expiation of the remainder of venial sins to the use of Ceremonies However since they attribute so spiritual effects to them it is an argument they look upon them as real parts of Divine Worship as much as they do on Prayer with which they compare them in point of efficacy But with what face can this be objected against our Church which utterly rejects any such spiritual efficacy as to the Ceremonies that are retained among us and declares that they are no otherwise received in our Church than as they are purged from Popish Superstition and Errour And therefore all opinion of merit and spiritual efficacy is taken from them which do make them to be parts of Divine Worship which being removed they remain onely naked Ceremonies i. e. as Cassander well expresses it Words made visible or teaching Actions whose design and intention being towards us and not towards God they cannot be thought to be made parts of Divine Worship although they be used in the performance of them As if the Christians in the East did wear the bâ—dge of a Cross upon their Arms at some solemn days as on good Friday at their devotions to distinguish them from Turks and Iews would any one say that they made this badge a part of Divine Worship But when they see the Papists on that day using the most solemn postures of adoration to the Crucifix they might well charge them with making this a part of Divine Worship So that the distinction between these two is not so hard to find if men apply their minds to the consideration of it 2. Men may make Ceremonies to become parts of Divine Worship if they suppose them unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians for this supposes an equal necessity with that of Divine Institution If men do assert so great a Power in the Church as to appoint things for spiritual effects and to oblige the Consciences of all Christians to observe them it is all one as to say the Church may make new parts of Worship But this can with no colour be objected against a Church which declares as expresly as it is possible that it looks on the Rites and Ceremonies used therein as things in their own nature indifferent and alterable and that changes and alterations may be made as seems necessary or expedient to those in Authority And that every Country is at liberty to use their own Ceremonies and that they neither condemn others nor prescribe to them What can more express the not making Ceremoâ—â— any parts of Divine Worship than these things dâ— And thus I have at once shewed what we mean by substantial parts of Divine Worship and that our Church doth not make any human Ceremonies to be so Sect. 29. I now come particularly to examin the charge against our Church For Mr. A. saith An outward visible sign of an inward invisible grace whereby a person is dedicated to the profession of and subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship I answer 1. An outward visible sign between men representing the duty or engagement of another is no part of Divine Worship at all much less a substantial part of it There are some visible signs from God to men representing the effects of his Grace to us and those we call Sacraments there are other signs from men to God to testifie their subjection and dependence and these are acts of Worship and there are signs from men to men to represent some other thing besides the bare action and these are significant Ceremonies such as the Cross in Baptism is For after the Child is baptized and received into the Church the sign of the Cross is used in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the faith of Christ crucified c. To whom is this token made Is it to God no certainly If it were a permanent sign of the Cross would it be for a Testimony to God or to Men When the Primitive Christians used the sign of the Cross in token they were not ashamed of Christ crucified was this a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men And what if it represents subjection to Christ as the Redeemer must it therefore be such an outward visible sign of inward invisible Grace as the Sacraments are It represents the Duty and not the Grace the Duty is ours and may be represented by us but the Grace is Gods and therefore he must appoint the signs to represent and convey that because he alone is the Giver of it 2. The Cross in Baptism is not intended by our Church for a sign of immediate dedication to God but of obligation on the person It is true that in the 30 Canon it is said that this Church retains the sign of the Cross following the example of the Primitive and Apostolical Churches and accounteth it a lawfull outward Ceremony and honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him who died upon the Cross. But for the right understanding thereof we must consider That Baptism is declared to be compleat before so that the sign of the Cross adds nothing to the perfection or vertue of it nor being omitted takes nothing from it as it is there expressed as the sense of this Church This therefore is no part of the Baptismal Dedication And the Minister acts in a double capacity when he doth baptize and when he signs with the sign of the Cross when he baptizeth he acts by vertue of Authority derived from Christ I baptize thee in the Name of the Father c. Which being done and the Child thereby solemnly dedicated to God in Baptism he then speaks in the name of the Church varying the number We receive this Child into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. i. e. We Christians that are already members of Christ's Flock do receive him into our number and in token of his being obliged to perform the duty belonging to such a one do make use of this sign of the Cross as the Rite of Admission into the Church and of his obligation to behave himself as becomes a Christian. And if we consider the sign of the Cross in this sense as no doubt it was so intended all the difficulties about a Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign concerning which some have made so great a stir will soon appear to be of no force For why may not the Church appoint such a Rite of Admission of one of her Members declaring it to be no part of Baptism Let us suppose an adult person to be baptized and immediately after Baptism to be admitted a Member of an Independent Church and the Ceremony of this admission to be holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant i. e. of promising to live as a Church-member ought to doe
among them the Pastour of the Church then baptizes him and immediately after upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant he saith in the name of the Church we receive thee into this Congregation and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us What harm is there in all this And yet is not this a Professing Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person Is it not therefore dedicating covenanting and sacramental as much as the sign of the Cross Why then should this be scrupled more than the other And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross and as God's Officer from him and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church as evidently appears by those words We receive him into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and then follows as the solemn rite of Admission And do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. All publick and solemn Admissions into Societies having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churchs Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull as a transient arbitrary professing sign yet not as a dedicating sign and as the common professing symbol of baptized Persons If it be lawfull in the former sense I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter Yes saith he the instituting of the latter belongs to God onely How doth that appear Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end True but not onely for that end but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men which none but God himself can doe and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution which is the onely possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament because it is a professing sign of Reverence then laying on the hand and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments because they are publick symbolical Rites But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onely to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects Yet I hope every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians And is not every Church-member bound to perform these That which is peculiar is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members i. e. makes it necessary to none else and to shew it to be onely a solemn Rite of Admission it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient we need not devise more and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency If it be lawfull the Church is to judge of the expediency and not every private person And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Well saith Mr. B. but it is unlawfull on another account viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship and so forbidden in the Second Commandment He may as well make it unlawfull to use Words in God's Worship for are not they Images and represent things to our minds as well as a transient sign of the Cross Nay doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God as he instanceth in a Crucifix or historical Image of Christ or some holy man If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose what out-cries of Popery had been made against us How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted to shew that they went no further and desired no more than this Yet the transient sign of the Cross without any respect to Worship is condemned among us as forbidden by the Second Commandment and that by the same person and in the same page But it is used as a medium in God's Worship Is our Worship directed to it or do we kneel before it as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God No all these are rejected by our Church How then is it a medium in God's Worship Why forsooth it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship What as much as kneeling before a Crucifix and yet that is lawfull according to him supposing the mind be onely excited by it Suppose then we onely use the sign of the Cross to excite mens consideration in the act of Worship what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground But our Church allows not so much onely taking it for a lawfull outward Ceremony which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship For Mr. B. saith in the same place there is a twofold medium in God's Worship 1. Medium excitans that raises our minds to Worship God as a Crucifix c. 2. Medium terminans or as he calls it terminus in genere causae finalis a worshipped medium or the terminus or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment viz. to worship a Creature with mind or body in the Act of Divine Worship as representing God or as the mediate term of our Worship by which we send it unto God as if it were more acceptable to him So
that it is lawfull saith he by the sight of a Crucifix to be provoked to worship God but it 's unlawfull to offer him that Worship by offering it to the Crucifix first as the sign way or means of sending it to God Observe here a strange piece of partiality 1. It is allowed to be lawfull to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans as an object that stirs up in us a worshipping affection and so all those Papists are excused from Idolatry who profess they use a Crucifix for no other end although they perform all Acts of adoration before it and it will become a very hard Question whether the mind in its consideration uniting the Image with the Object may not give the same Acts of Worship to one as to the other but in different respects For the Image being allowed to excite the mind to consideration of the object to be worshipped the object is considered in the mind as represented by the Image and consequently is so worshipped and why then may not the worship be as well directed to the Image as representing as to the Object represented by the Image provided that the Act of the mind be still fixed upon the Object as represented by the Image And thus even Latria may be performed to a Crucifix Is not this a very fair concession to the Papists But on the other side 2. The sign of the Cross even the aëreal sign as Dr. O. calls it must be made a medium in God's Worship though it be utterly denied by our Church and there be no colour for it from his own grounds For it is neither medium excitans being not intended by our Church for that purpose a Crucifix being much fitter for that purpose and our Church calls it onely a lawfull ceremony and honourable badge much less can it be thought to be any mediate object of our Worship there being nothing like Worship performed towards it But if all his meaning be that whatever is used in the time of Worship that is not a meer circumstance must be a medium of Worship that is so weak a pretence that I shall consider it no farther Sect. 31. But suppose it be no medium of Worship yet it cannot out of Mr. B. 's Head but that it must be a new Sacrament For saith he If Christ had instituted the Cross as our Church doth would you not have called this a Sacrament And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction it wanteth indeed a due efficient but it is still a Human Sacrament though not a Divine and therefore an unlawfull Sacrament If Christ had instituted it with such promises as he hath his other Sacraments no doubt it had been one but then the use of it had been quite changed from what it is now For then its signification had been from God to us and the Minister had signed in Christ's Name and not in the Churches and then it had been in token that Christ will not fail of his Promise if we perform our Conditions But here it is quite contrary as hath already appeared There is one thing yet remaining in Mr. B. about this matter to be considered viz. That according to the Rule of our Church the Cross in Baptism hath a Sacramental efficacy attributed to it for saith he As the Water of Baptism worketh morally by signifying the washing of Christ's Body so the Cross is to operate morally by signifying Christ's Crucifixion the benefits of his Cross and our Duty And then he adds That it is the common Doctrine of Protestants that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally and that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain onely such moral Causality in Sacraments And so by this means he would make the sign of the Cross to have the nature of a Sacrament with us But that he hath misrepresented or misapplied both the Popish and Protestant Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments to serve his purpose I shall now make appear 1. Concerning the Popish Doctrine that which overthrows the strength of all that Mr. B. saith is that it is unanimously agreed among them as a matter of faith that the Sacraments do confer grace ex opere operato where there is no actual impediment and that it is no less than heresie to assert that they are bare outward professing signs i. e. That they are meer Ceremonies This not one of them whom I ever saw either denies or disputes and it is expresly determin'd in the Councils of Florence and of Trent But then they have a very nice and subtle question among them about the manner how the Sacraments do confer Grace whether physically or morally By physically they mean when a thing by its own immediate action hath influence on producing the effect by morally they mean that which doth effectually concurr to the producing the effect but after another manner as by perswasion by intreaty c. As he that runs the sword into anothers bowels kills him physically he that perswades and incourages him effectually to doe it is as really the cause of his death as the other but then they say he is but a moral and not a physical cause of the murther They all agree that the Sacraments do effectually convey Grace where there is no obstacle put but the onely question is about the manner of producing it And as to this they agree that the Sacraments do work as moral Causes not principal but instrumental the principal they say is the Merit of Christ the Instrumental the Sacraments as deriving their efficacy from the former as the Writing from the Seal and the Seal from the Authority of the Person or as Money from the Stamp and the Stamp from the King but besides this they question whether there be not a proper efficiency by Divine Power in the Sacraments to produce at least the character from whence Divine Grace immediately follows And about this indeed they are divided Some say there is no necessity of asserting more than a bare moral Causality because this is sufficient for the infallible efficacy of the Sacraments sublato obice as Gamachaeus a late Professour in the Sorbon delivers their Doctrine and of this opinion he reckons Bonaventure Altissidore Scotus Durandus Canus Ledesma and many others and with this he closes because this is sufficient and the other is to make Miracles without cause as long as the effect follows certò infallibiliter ex opere operato as he there speaks And for the same reason Card. de Lugo yields to it although he there saith that a Sacrament is signum practicum infallibile Gratiae So that those who do assert onely this moral Causality of Sacraments do not suppose any uncertainty in the effect any more than the others do but onely differ about the way of producing it Yet Ysambertus another late Professour of the Sorbon proves the Doctrine of a Physical efficiency to be much
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
the Infidels Children in the world And his next is whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers and Gods general promise I answer 1. The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism and so whatever right the Parents have that is challenged when the Child is brought to be baptized 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's and hath so continued ever since but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it 3. In their own capacity when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith in the charge given to them after Baptism So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another they all succeeding each other there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents 2 If the Parents be supposed to have no right yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children Not as though their Sponsion gave the right but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance To make this clear we must consider that administration of Baptism is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys which Christ first gave to the Apostles and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church By vertue of this Power they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects The Church of Christ as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity hath alwayes allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church but lest the Church should fail of its end and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty it required Sponsors for them who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle ad Bonifacium where he saith 1. That the Childs benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism not for any spiritual benefit but for corporal health notwithstanding this saith S. Augustine if the due form of Baptism be observed the spiritual effect of it is obtained 2. That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants For saith he the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby not so much by those in whose arms they are carried for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms as by the whole Society of the Faithful Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit quia tota omnes tota singulos parit so that it is by the Churches right that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it 3. That there is no necessity that the Parents themselves offer their Children For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism as to the remission of Original Guilt or the account of their Parents offering them For many are offered to Baptism by strangers and slaves sometimes by their Masters And when Parents are dead Children are offered by such as take pity upon them and sometimes Children exposed by Parents and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins which neither have Children nor intend to have any 4. That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism Not as though the Child did really believe yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them do carry the name of the things represented as saith he the Sacrament of Christs body after a certain manner is called his Body and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood so the Sacrament of faith is called faith i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors which cannot be performed by the Children Thence he saith ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works and in another place he declares that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil and turn to God and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins 3. Those who think themselves bound to baptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptizing Children and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered For 1. They are not well agreed what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient or a justifying faith be necessary If saving faith be necessary whether the outward profession of it be sufficient Whether that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind or that only which is really so Whether profession be required for it self or as a discovery of something further Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient or real serioâ—sness be required What we must judge real seriousness in profession as distinct from inward sincerity What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary And whether besides all these actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary And if it be whether the Children of confederated Parents