their several fixed Provinces which I never saw proved I will not contend whether those Provinces may be called Churches If we agree about the thing use the name as you see cause Sect. 9. And to your talk of our Bishops being of the same sort I ask you whether any of the Bishops for 300 years or for long after save Cyril Alexand. by violence did ever use or claim any power over any Ministers or Christians besides meer fatherly Teaching Perswading urging Gods Word on them and applying it to the consciences of particular Persons by Admonitions verbal Censures and Absolutions Did they meddle by Force with Body or Purse Let your Bishops use no other force or way of constraint than the Apostles did if they be their Successors and not lay the excommunicate in Prisons and ruine their Bodies and Estates valeat quantum valere potest But Mr. Glanvile and many of you tell us how little you care for it without the Sword Sect. 10. If any man will but consider what I cited out of Greg. Nazianzen that saith Men unfit were so ambitious to be of the Clergy that the Clergy was in many Churches almost as many as the Laity And that Presbyters then were much like the Presbyterians Elders save that they had the power of Word and Sacraments though they seldom exercised Preaching in Cities but left that to the Bishop and that the number of their Acoluthi Exorcistae Ostiarii Lectores Subdiaconi Diaconi c. made up the great body of them And the very Boys and Schollars that were bred up under them yea or but for Church-singing are sometimes joyned to make up the number see Isidor de Offic. Eccl. L. 2. even all the Monks are often numbred with them And Victor cited by him seemeth to number twice the Infantuli so bred up with the great number of Readers to the Carthage Clergy I say he that considers all this will not judge of the number of people or Churches by the number of the Clergy as he would do now with us where the great Parishes have but two or three Priests Sect. 11. And as to the cause that I plead for it is enough that I have proved that even when the name of Bishop was confined to the Episcopi Pastorum yet the Presbyters had the power of the Keys and were Episcopi Gregis and exercised this power in their distant Countrey assemblies though under the Bishop and the Bishop was to exercise his with them as Assistants so that the particular Churches were not really unchurched Sect. 12. p. 265. He cometh nearer our controversie but first falsly stateth the question supposing that I say that the whole power of the Presbyters is swallowed up by the Bishops And is the disputing of a question falsly stated of any profit I only said that the office of a Church-Pastor or Presbyter hath three essential parts viz. the power of Teaching the Church of conducting them in Worship and Governing the people by the use of the Keys And that he that destroyeth one part that is essential though he swallow not up all the power altereth the essence of the Office and that so the English Diocesan Form doth I have largely proved in my Treat of Episcopacy which he doth not answer Sect. 13. 1. He tells us that the Presbyters are the lower house in the Convocation and so have their Votes in passing all the Rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and Forms of divine Service Ans 1. According to his description the Church of England hath no one Ecclesiastical Government either Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical And therefore the Acts of the Convocation are no Acts of governing the Church of England but meer Agreements Therefore this proveth not the Presbyters power of governing it 2. If this be a part of Government it is the Legislative Part or the Executive The later it is not The former the Lawyers say it is not King and Parliament only being Legislators But if this be Legislation we deny it to be any of the power of the Keys in question which is but to judge who is fit or unfit for Church-communion to Admonish Absolve or Excommunicate according to Christs Law and is the execution of Christs Law and not the making of new Laws 3. It is lis sub judice whether the things here named be any part of true lawful Church-Government Rules of Discipline Christ hath made enough except about meer mutable Accidents Articles of Doctrine man must not otherwise make than to declare what he believeth Christ hath made Forms of Divine Service commanded to all others the Apostles never made nor that we find appointed any others to make them If these be lawful by way of agreement of many Churches this is none of the Power we speak of Yet he calls this one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. making Rules for the whole body which he denyeth to have any constitutive Government Sect. 14. He saith In this main part of Government our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches only there they were taken singly in every City c. Ans That is 1. When the Ministers of a Diocess choose four out of whom the Bishops take two And 2. This only to make agreements without any governing power over the Church of England 3. And this only about general Regulation 4. In either unlawful or doubtful Impositions on others about meer Accidents or Circumstances of Order This is the same or as good as when every true Church hath present Pastors personally to exercise the executive Church-Government called the Keys by the Laws of Christ already made in judging the case of each particular Person as to his Title to Church-communion and the Kingdom of Heaven For that is the thing which by us is pleaded for Sect. 15. Next he tells us of four that are to joyn in Ordinatiom and Examination when 1. It is not the making or governing of Pastors which I am speaking of but the Government of the Flocks 2. He knoweth that it is no strange thing for our Bishops to say that both in Convocations and Ordination the Presbyters act only as the Bishops Council and the Bishops only act by governing authority 3. I never disputed for Presbyters Power to ordain as essential to them nor did I ever meddle in any Ordination 4. If four Presbyters have such power that proveth not that four hundred have it that never exercise it in the same Diocess 5. If by all this you mean that really Presbyters have the governing Power of the Keys it condemneth those the more that give it to four and deny it to four hundred or one thousand 6. When I was ordained none examined us but the Bishops Chaplain and two or three City Ministers called by the Bishop that never saw us before meerly pro formâ laid hands on us with him But it 's well that you give such a power to ordain Sect. 16. Next p. 267. he
I think not invalidate and yet this goeth for no justification of us so is it with others § 10. Some think that it is a Conventicle as described by their Cannon that must make us Separatists which is of men that call themselves of another Church But that 's not it Mr. Gouge Mr. Poole Mr. Humphrey and my self and abundance more that never gathered any Church nor called our selves of any other then their own are nevertheless separatists in these mens account § 11. They that remembred what was called Separation in England of old supposed it had these two degrees which made men called Brownists First falsly taking the Parish Ministers and Churches for no true Ministers and Churches of Christ and therefore not to be Communicated with Secondly or in the lower rank falsly taking the faults of the Parish Ministers and Churches to be so great that its a sin to have ordinary Communion with them But they that have still disclaimed both these are Separatists still in our Accusers sence § 12. Some thought that ordinary Communicating in the Parish Churches and pleading for it would prove us no separatists with them But this will not serve as my own and many other mens Experience proveth § 13. I am called after to say more of this The sum of my separation is this First that I take not the Parish Churches to be the only Churches that I must Communicate with and will not confine my Communion to them alone as if they were a sect or All But will also have Communion with Dutch French or Nonconformists 2. I take not the Order Discipline and mode of worship in the Parish Churches nor the Preaching of very many Parsons Vicars and Curates to be the best and most desirable 3. I take those to be no true Political Churches which have no Pastors that have all the Qualifications and Call and Authority which is Essential to the Office and therefore can communicate with them but as with a flock without a Pastor or an Oratory Community or Catechized Company 4. I live peaceably under such Bishops as have many hundred Parishes and no Episcopos Gregis true Bishops and Pastoral Churches under them as they think But I own not their Constitution 5. I joyn with all the Churches in England as Associated for mutual help and Concord in all that the Scripture prescribeth and in all the Protestant Religion and all that all Christian Churches are agreed in and all that is truly needful to the ends of Christianity But not absolutely in all which their Canons Liturgy c. conttaine Especially their sinful Impositions and their Presumtious Canonical Excommunications of dissenters ipso facto 6. I am one of the Christian Kingdom of England as under the King according to the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and am for obeying the Laws and Rules in all things lawfully belonging to their Power to command But not for obeying them in sin against God nor for believing all to be Lawful because they command it nor for their taking down Family Government or self Government and discerning private Judgment of the subjects This is my measure of separation § 14. And I think in cases that concern our own and many mens Salvation we should have leave freely to speak for our selves and not be used as we are that must neither be endured to be silent or to speak Let this Dr. open our case to you himself saith he Pref. p. 36. Speaking of my first Plea for Peace 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 less than thiâ—ty tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conformity set down in it and all this done without the 〈…〉 provocation given on oue side And elswhere he saith he shall less regard my aggravations Ans 1. If I do that which you think as bad I would gladly be told of it though false accusations I desire not And impenitence is too soon learnt without a Teacher or Academical degrees and I had rather be saved from it 2. But Reader I once more appeal to the Judgment of all reason and humanity as well as Christianity to decide the case of this Accusation 1. We did in 1660. and 1661. All that we were able by labour petition and yielding as far as we durst for fear of sin and Hell to have been united and lived in Church Concord with the Episcopal party 2. When our labour and hopes were frustrate and two thousand of us cast out of the Ministery and afterwards laws made against us as Conventiclers first for our Fining Imprisonment and then Banishment and after besides Imprisonment to pay twenty pound the first Sermon and forty pound the next and so on when after this the Law that banished us from all Cities Corporations c. and places where we lately Preached did most deeply accuse us as the cause I never wrote so much as the reasons of our dissent When by the execution of these Laws we were by Informers and others used as is well known I was still silent My not conforming shewed my dissent but I durst not so much as once tell them why lest it should more exasperate them 3. At last I was often told that the Bishop that first forbad my Preaching and many others after him oft said to Great men Mr. Baxter keeps up a Schism and yet holds all our conformity lawful save renouncing a rebellious Covenant And I yet continued silent 4. At last they wrote against us that we durst not say that any part of Conformity was sin but only inconvenient 5. Then many pulpits and books proclaim that we against our Consciences kept up a Schism for a baffled cause which we had nothing to say for 6. All this while Lords and Commons used to ask us what is it that you would have and what keepeth you from Conformity In private talk but would never allow us to speak for our selves and give the world or Parliament our reasons 7. Many years together Pulpits and Printed Books of the Clergy cryed out to the Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and as one said set fire to the Fagot and blamed them for not doing it 8. When the King gave us his Licence they were greatly offended as aforesaid 9. At last one great Bishop told me that he would desire the King to constraine us to give our reasons and not keep up a Schism and not tell for what And another greater told me that the King took us to be not sincere that would not give our reasons And all this while I durst not give them as knowing how they would be received 10. When the Bishops kept me from Preaching and gave me leisure I wrote 1. An Apology for our Preaching 2 A Treatise of Episcopacy and divers other such and yet durst not Print them
More and more untruths 1. Where do I say that owns it self to be Independant as if that were necessary to its being 1. Doth he not confess that I own general Visitors or Archbishops and appeals 2. That I own Associations which he makes the state of the Church of England 3. That I own Synods for obliging concord 4. That I own the Magistrates Government of all Is there no dependancy in any of these or all what dependancy more doth he assert 2. As to the Power of the Keys dare he come into the light and tell us whether any power of the Keys that is of the Government of his particular Church be essential to the Pastor of a true organized governed Church or not If not is it not a contradiction to call it a governed Church If yea then is he a Pastor that wants what is essential to a Pastor But if they will call a forcing Power or the present secular Mode of their Courts by the name of the Keys I never said that these are essential to a Church nor desirable in it but am a Nonconformist because I will not by Oath or Covenant renounce just Endeavours to amend it Sect. 12. p. 121 122. The next Accusation is They leave it in the peoples Power notwithstanding all legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit Answ He tireth me with putting me on repetitions 1. They can unjustly judge of none and disown them without sin It is not I that give men power to sin no more than Power to die or be sick which is but impotency would I could give them power against it 2. It is not power to reject any chosen by King or Patrons from being publick Teachers or to have the Tithes and Temples nor to be a Pastor to others But it is to have a discerning Judgment whether one chosen by the Patron be a person to whom he himself ought to trust the pastoral Conduct of his Soul Either the Dr. thinks that Laymen have this discerning power and duty or not If yea is it nothing to him to seem thus seriously to plead against his conscience If not I ask him 1. What meant Christ and his Apostles to call men to beware of false Teachers to avoid the Leven of their Doctrine to mark them and avoid them and turn away from them and not bid them good speed 2. What meant all the ancient Churches to forbid Communion with Hereticks and even some Popes and Councils to hear Mass of Fornicators â— What meant all those Fathers and Councils that make him no Bishop that cometh not in with the peoples consent if not Election 4. Why will he not be intreated to tell us in what Countries or with what Limitations the contrary Doctrine must be received Must all the people trust only such Pastors as the Prince or Patrons choose all over England or also in Ireland France Spain Italy Germany among Lutherans Calvinists Greeks c. supposing the Law be on that side Must we all be of the Kings or Patrons Religion 5. Is this agreeable to his old Doctrine cited Chap. 1. Sect. 13. p. 122. He adds Mr. Baxter speaks his mind very freely against the Rights and Patronage and the Power of the Magistrates in such Cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the people as the old Separatists did Ans Is this true 1. What is it against the Right of Patronage or Magistrates Power for me to choose who I will trust the guidance of my Soul with while I contradict not his power to choose publick Teachers and give the Tithes and Temples and confess that for order sake I ought to consent to such as he chooseth thus unless he put on me a true necessity of a better choice If the King choose all the Hospital Physicians what wrong is it to him if I at my own charge choose a better for my self when I think else ignorance or malice will murder me Doth he that desireth as I ever do that in so great a case there may be many Locks to the Church Door deny any one of them viz. The Ordainers consent the Magistrates and Patrons and the Peoples Is this the same that the old Separatists did Should Glocesier take Goodman a Papist for their Bishop because the King chose him Abundance of Patrons in the beginning of Q. Elizabeths Reign presented Papists It seems if they were imposed by Law and Patrons you would have the people submit to those that cry down Bishops Liturgy and Ceremonies too Father Paul Sarpi translated by Dr. Denton will tell you how new a way this is Sect. 14. p. 122. He adds The People are made Judges of the Competency of their Ministers Answ They are discerning Judges Doth not your charge imply that you think otherwise and yet you dare not say so Must they not judge when Forreigners heretofore were set over them whether they speak English or no or if a Socinian deny Christs Godhead or the im mortality of the Soul whether he be Competent or not Or if they have an ignorant Curate that when necessary advice for the Soul is asked of him will say no more but Trouble not your head about such matters but cast away care and live merrily If when the blind lead the blind both fall into the ditch must we not note the difference Alas how little would some men have a man care for his Soul in comparison of caring what Physick what Food what Wife what Servant what Trade he chooseth Trust one to the conduct of such as all the Patrons of England will choose for you but not any of the other As to the not causeless forsaking former Pastors he knoweth that it was the strict charge of the old Canons of the Churches and the Bishops themselves do hold the same I thought they ought not to be forsaken because men thrust them out The Churches at Antioch Alexandria and many more did oft and long cleave to those Pastors whom the Christian Emperors cast out and reject those whom they imposed When I have proved this so fully in my first Plea and Church-history what an unsatisfactory answer is it for such a Dr. to repeat it and say This is plain dealing Is the Judgment and Practice of the Churches so light with him Sect. 15. p. 123. The next charge is They give directions to the people what sort of Ministers they should own and what not Answ We do so And I had thought all Christians had been of the same mind It 's sad with the Church when this Doctrine needeth a publick defence Dare he say that all imposed must be owned Then either Salvation is at the Magistrates will or it 's the priviledge of such Countries as have good ones or a man may be saved in any Country Religion contrary to the Article which they all subscribe Sect. 16. Next the Accuser falls on my general Rule The Ministry that tendeth to Destruction more than to Edification and to do
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
Is his Rule true only in England or in France Spain Italy Muscovy c. also or where that the Law maketh men true Pastors Sect. 28. But p. 132. he said that he detesteth the Principles that set mans Laws above Gods and that in stating the Controversie he supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting parties of our Church Answ Of all things you are the unhappiest in stating the Controversie The Instances here were 1. Insufficiency through Ignorance 2. Heresie 3. Malignant oppugning the very ends of the Ministry 4. No true calling 1. Doth he agree with us in all the Substantials of Religion who knoweth not the very essentials of Christianity Ignorantis non est Consensus 2. Doth he agree with us in all the substantials that is a Heretick or if we falsly judge his opinion Heresie do we agree with him 3. Is malignant opposing Godliness and pleading for prophaneness or ungodliness an agreement in all the Substantials 4. What if we agree in all Substantials with an unordained Layman imposed on us is he therefore our true Pastor 5. But how shall we know whether we agree or not if we are no judges of it Do you not see your own Contradictions who shall judge whether the Pastors or People agree shall the Prince or Patron If you know the Teachers heart how know you the Peoples Must we believe that we agree because you say so If the people must judge whether they Agree they must judge of the things in which the Agreement is that is both the Pastors Doctrine and their own minds And is not this to judge whether he be a Heretick c. or not And who shall judge whether the disagreement be in Substantials It must be the agreers And they must be wiser than I if they can learn from you here what is a Substantial and how to know it Sect. 29. It may be he will say that where Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox none are Usurpers but true Pastors whom they impose Ans But doth not this make the people Judges whether Princes and Parliaments are Orthodox and is not that as dangerous as to judge of the Teachers And Orthodox Princes and Parliaments may impose Heretical Teachers and may by Law enable Patrons and Prelates to impose them What more natural than to propagate what men like and oppose what they hate If the many hundred Patrons in England be all orthodox and pious and free from Schism c. we are strangely happy If not we may expect that they choose accordingly But the Bishops will secure us Ans 1. They have not done 2. They say they cannot by Law 3. Would it be any wonder if Bishop Goodman of Glocester kept not out any Popish Teacher Or if such Fathers of the Church as Archbishop Bromhall let in such as would have the Pope Govern us all by the Canons as Patriark and principium unitatis and all pass for Shoismaticks that consent not to such a forreign Jurisdiction contrary to our National Oaths Sect. 30. As to his instance of Solomons putting out Abiathar c. I answered it fully and many more objections in my first Plea and will not write the same again for him that thinks it not worth the answering or taking notice of Sect. 31. When p. 138 139. he makes it the way to all imaginable Confusions to deny 1. that the Kings Nomination of Bishops 2. and the Patrons of Parish Pastors proveth them no Usurpers but true Pastors is he not an unreverend dishonourer of Bishops himself who maketh them all that for a thousand years held the same that I do to be the authors of all imaginable Confusion Is he not unreverend to their Canons and to antiquity and to the universal Church itself Whatever in his third part he Cavils against it he cannot be so strange to Church-history as not to know that they were commonly against him Sect. 32. The matter of the next accusation is p. 139 140. having said Plea p. 41. 42. If any make sinful terms of Communion by Laws or Mandate imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion and expelling those that will not so sin I add If any should not only excommunicate such persons for not complying with them in sin but also prosecute them with Malice Imprisonments Banishment or other Persecution to force them to transgress this were heynous aggravated Schism Ans And is not this true or doth his bare repeating it disprove it Is he a zealous Enemy of Schisin that taketh all this for none I did not steal it out of his defence of Archbishop Laud but less than this is there made Schism Yet he tells us that he sets not mans Laws above Gods nor pleads for Persecution But lest the repeating of my words should shame the Accuser he hath two handsome devices 1. He puts complying with them in sin that is Conformity as refused instead of those that will not so sin in sinful terms of Communion forbidden by God c. 2. He forgeth an addition as mine and therefore it is no sin to separate from such when I have no such words being only there telling what is Schism and not what is not I confess it will sound odly to say It is Schism not to communicate with those who excommunicate imprison and banish me by Law if I will not do that which God forbids and they make a Condition of my communion For I must not sin And in prison and Banishment under Excommunication they deny me communion And yet I say not that it 's always faultless For if they do not execute their own Law in some cases where publick good requireth it I may best communicate with them as far as they permit me without the imposed sin till they do execute them But this excuseth not their Schism Sect. 33. p. 140. He blames me as charging him with the silencing design Ans I did warn him in real desire of his safety If defending the Church-Laws and Endeavours for our restraint in the words to which I refer the Reader If preaching and writing against our preaching as Schism and all the rest in his Books do signifie no owning of our silencing I am glad that he meaneth better than he seemeth who could have thought otherwise that had read 1. his first Q. whether it be not in the power of those that give orders to limit and suspend the exercise of the ministerial Function Q. 2. And whether the Christian Magistrate may not justly restrain such Ministers from preaching who after the experience do refuse to renounce those Principles which they judge do naturally tend to involve us again in the like trouble And Serm. p. 42. the Church of Englands endeavours after Uniformity is acquitted from Tyranny over the Consciences of men by the Judgment c. And p. 54. condemning them as hard thoughts of the Bishops that in cruelty they follow Ithacius c. And in this new Book
Presbyterian National Church is one as headed by the General Assembly 10. An Episcopal National Church is one either as headed by one National Bishop or else by a Synod of Bishops Aristocratically or else by a Synod of Bishops and Presbyters Aristocratically All these that are constituted of One Regent and a subdite Part are called Churches in a Political proper sense and not only equivocally Now the Question is Of which sort is the National Church of England And the Doctor saith page 287. 1. That the Society of all Christians is counted a true Catholick Church from their Union and Consent in some common things and so is ours c. Answ But in what common things Not in one Bible for so may Hereticks much less in one Liturgy If it be not a consent in one Governing Head it makes no proper Church 2. He supposeth an agreement in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline Answ That 's right But what Government is it Civil or Ecclesiastical The first is no essential part of a proper Church If it be the later is it one in specie or in individuâ— politico Not the former for a 100 Episcopal Churches in several Nations may have one species of Government as many Kingdoms may have It is therefore the later that is all my Question which is the Church-Head He saith As several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National Answ True if that National Church have one Constitutive Head as a Family hath It 's no Family without a Pater or Mater Familias And no Governed proper Church without Governours and there is no Governour where there is no supreme in his place and kind For inferiours have all their power from the supreme There is no Universal supreme but God but the King is subordinately the supreme in his Kingdom in respect to inferiours and so it is in other Governed Societies He addeth The name of a Church comprehended the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and so may be extended to many Cities united under one Civil Government and the same rules of Religion Answ 1. If the question were only de nomine we grant that Civil Courts even of Heathens are usually by Writers called Ecclesia and so is any Assembly If this be all you mean speak out 2. Many Nations may agree in the same Rules of Religion yea so all Christians do Doth this constitute National Churches 3. One Civil Government is of another species and not essential but accidental to a Church and therefore doth not constitute or individuate it One justice of Peace or Mayor in a Christian Corporation doth not make it one Parish Church But if this be all your meaning speak out we grant de re a Christian Kingdom and contend not de nomine if you call it a Church § 3. page 297. â— As to the difference of a National Church and Kingdom he granteth what we desire confessing the difference But asketh whence cometh all this zeal now against a National Church Answ An untrue insinuation 1. To desire to know what it is is untruly called zeal against it 2. And agreeing with you in the description is no zeal against it He adds The Presbyterians and Mr. Hudson write for it Answ Mr. Hudson is a Conformist And the Presbyterians tell you what they mean a Christian Nation of particular Churches Governed by One General Assembly as the Supreme Ecclesiastical Government Whether this be just or unjust is now none of our question I have oft told what I think of it Do you also tell us which is your National Church-power and I have done Are you loth to be understood § 4. But page 299. He cometh to his plain Answer viz. 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastors and People agreeing in that Faith Government and worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And now he continues his wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England Answ Yea your wonder may increase that I less and less understand it if you did not after tell us better â—â—an in this unhappy definition 1. Is this called the Church diffusive one Governed body Politick If not it is no Church in the sense in question and I 'le not stick with you for an equivocal name 2. Do you mean by Government agreed in 1. The Civil Government 2. Or the Ecclesiastical Government of the particular Churches severally 3. Or one Government of all the National Church 1. The first makes it no Church in the sense in question 2. The second makes it no Church but an Association of many Churches such as a thousand Independent Churches may make or the Churches of many Kingdoms Many Families Associated are no City or one ruled Society if they agree in no Common Governours but only their several Family Governours Many Cities associated are no Commonwealth if they agree not in one supreme power It 's no political body without one common Governour Natural or Collective Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical And what is it of Worship established by Law that individuates your Church If all thâ—â— the Law hath established 1. Your Church hath oft changed its very being and may do at every Parliament 2. And the Church is small and unknown if all that differ in any point established are no parts of it But if it be not all established who knoweth by this definition what it is and what is the very matter of your Church So that here is a definition which neither notifieth matter or form § 5. Next he answereth the Question How all the Congregations in England make up this one Church and answereth By Unity of Consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Answ Consent to what 1. If it be not to one common Government it is no Governed Church as one 2. Doth he think that the Catholick Church consenteth not to one Governing Head Christ And doth any thing else make them formally One Politick body or Church This were ill Doctrine § 6. Question How comes it to be One National Church Saith he I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are Answ Whether How comes it Speak of the efficient cause or the formal or what it 's hard to know so singular are his Logical notions But the first is most likely And then 1. The question is still unanswered What is the One common Governing power in the Church which this Parliament consent hath â—â—t up He knows this is the question 2. And if it be by Parliament consent how old is your Church What Parliament first made it It 's not so old as Luther Is it no older than the Liturgy or Canons 3. Doth it die and live again as oft as Parliaments change it If the corruption of
one have been the generation of another how many Churches of England have you had 4. The whole Nation did not consent by Parliament when the Lords and Commons voted down the Bishops and Liturgy was there then no National Church 5. How shall we prove that the whole or half the Nation ever meant to put their consent into the hand of the Parliament to make a new Church of England and to alter it 6. What men make they may destroy May not the Nation withdraw such consent and the Parliament unmake their creature § 7. Next p. 300 he saith The Representative Church of England iâ— the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting according to the Laws of the Realm to consult and advise about 〈◊〉 of Religion The consent of 〈◊〉 Convocations of Caâ—â—erbury and York Provinces â—â— the Representative National Church of England Answ 1. So here we have a Diffusivâ— Church and its Representative but no Government of either as a Church mentioned but the Civil 2. And they can be no Governours meerly as Representing those that are no Governours themselves Not as the peoples Representatives foâ— they are no Church Governours whatever elsewhere he saith like a Brownist of the Keys being given to Peter as representing the whole Church Not as the Presbyters representatives For 1. They are denied Episcopal power 2. And they are Governours at most but of their particular Churches and not of the whole 3. Not as the Bishops representatives for 1. They are there themselves 2. And they are no Common Governours of the whole as such 3. If he mean that the two Convocations when they consent become the One Common Constitutive Governing Power of the National Church this is intelligible but 1. He after denieth any such 2. And then their dissent would dissolve the Church and one Convocation not oblige it with much more such § 8. But yet he perceiveth he hath not answered me and therefore comes to it page 300 saying It 's a false supposition that where-ever there is the true notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part a standing Governing power which is an essential part of it Answ A true notion belongeth to equivocals The true notion and the proper political notion are words of various signification I have granted you that the true notion of a Church belongs to a Ship-full a Prison full a House-full of Christians as such and to our Parliament and to the Common-Council of the City But not the notion now in question 2. Is not Government essential to a Governed Church Fixed Government to a fixed Church and transient temporary Government to an answerable Church Deny this and few will follow you § 9. He adds Which I will prove to be false from Mr. B. himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches headed by their particular Bishops or Pastors are parts of the Universal Church as a Troop is of an Army and a City of a Kingdom Then it will unavoidably follow that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Bs Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderful kindness But there are some men in the world that do not attend the advantages they give to Popery so they may but vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. B. say that the Universal Church is headed by Christ I grant he doth But the Question is of the Visible Church of which particular Churches are parts And they being Visible parts require a Visible Constitutive Regent Head therefore the whole Visible Church must have likewise a Constitutive Visible Regent part This is to make a Key for Catholicks Answ I am glad he speaketh so intelligibly in denying a Constitutive Regent part though sorry that he speaks so ill 1. When I have written against Johnson alias Terrae the Papist two Books on this subject especially the later fully proving the Catholick Church headed by Christ to be that visible Church Catholick of which all particulars are members Can the Reader think I should write it over again because this Doctor will talk over a little of the same with that Priest and take no notice of my proof or answer 2. Doth he believe that the Kingdoms of the World are not visible parts of God's Universal Kingdom and yet God invisible 3. Dare he say that all true Churches are not real parts of Christ's Universal Church as a Governed body and yet are not they visible Is it necessary then that the Universal Head must be visible if the subordinate be so 4. Doth he not perceive that he turneth the Controversie from the necessity of a Regent head to the necessity of his visibility As if our question had not been Which is the Regent part of the Church of England but whether it must be visible Is this edifying 5. All Christians are agreed that the Universal Church is Visible 1. In its parts and members on earth and their profession 2. In that Christ the Head was visible on earth 3. And hath left Visible Universal Laws 4. And hath a Body visible in Heaven as the King is to his Courtiers but not to most of his Subjects 5. And will shortly visibly judge all the World Thus far and no further save as seen extraordinarily to Paul Stephen c. is the Universal Head Visible And are we not agreed that this is a real and most excellent Political Church and that all other Visible Churches are parts of it Something besides spleen makes some men talk dangerously § 10. But really doth he think that this doth unavoidably set up the Pope Why first is there a word of this that a sober Christian dare deny or that the Christian World doth not commonly consent to And do the certain Doctrines of the Gospel and Church set up the Pope Will he turn Papist if this be proved and the Christian World be not deceived Is this our Champion against Popery now I thought no man but Mr. Cheny and some odd Papists had been of this Opinion But to Mr. Cheny and against Johnson I have confuted it and therefore thither refer the Reader Far be it from me to resist Popery by denying 1. That Christ's Church thus far visible is one Political body headed by himself 2. Or that all true visible Churches are parts of it 3. Or that every Political Governed body is constituted of the Regent and subdite parts Christians will reject me for the former and Politicians deride me if I hold the last § 11. He proceedeth 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Regent Constitutive 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 Universal consent to make a Catholick Answ No consent maketh a Catholick Church but consenting to one supreme Head Christ But I
am glad I understand you § 12. Saith he Quest By what way this National consent is to be declared By the Constitutions of this Church the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their judgments in matters of Religion which received and enacted by Parliament there is as great a National consent as to any Law And all the Bishops Ministers and People make up this National Church Answ Now we are come to the bottom And 1. Our question is of the Constitution of the Church and the Doctor tells us the Administration makes it To consult and advise and make Laws are acts of Administration and follow the Constitution Men must have Power before they use it and must be a Church before they act 〈◊〉 Church 2. Yea to Advise and Consult are not so much as acts proper to administring Government but belong to those that are no Governours also 3. If they be no Laws till the Parliament make them such then either the Parliament are your Church Head or you have none that 's Ecclesiastical But having your plain Confession that you have no such Regent part and so are no Church Political save Civil but a meer Association I ask § 13. 1. Why do you pretend that we are none of the Church of England or that we vent our spleen against it or deny it who deny not Associated Churches in England under one Civil Government 2. How unhappily are the Church-Defenders and Conformists disagreed Read Mr. Dodwell and many such others that take the Church to be a Governed body Politick and see what they will judg of you 3. Are not you and I liker to be of one Church of England who agree what it is than you and those Bishops and Doctors that speak of two different things and agree not so much as what it is 4. Have you not brought your Defence of the Church of England to a fair issue by denying that there is any such Church in the questioned political sense 5. What made you before talk of being under one Government If you meant only Civil Is your Governed Church as such only Civil or a Kingdom only 6. Do you not now absolve all men from the duty of obeying the Church of England aâ— such and from all guilt of disobeying them How can men Govern that are no Governours and how can we obey them It 's only the Civil power then that we herein disobey If you say that all the Bishops are Governours and altogether govern the whole I answer Yes per partes but not as a whole or Church If twenty Families in a Village agree as Masters and Servants to go one way as Consenters this maketh no one Government of the Village If the Physicians of London consent to one Pharmacopeia that maketh them not a body Politick If twenty Sea Captains consent to go one Voyage by one rule each one is a Governour of his own Ship but this maketh no Government of the whole All the Justices and Mayors of England rule the Kingdom per partes by the same Law But all together make not one Aristocracy to Govern the Kingdom as One whole Unless your Bishops c. are United in One persona Politica or Aristocracy they may rule their several Churches but they make not one common Government for the National Church as such An agreement of the Emperour Spaniard and other Confederates make not one Kingdom or body Politick 7. How can they be Schismaticks for disobeying them that are not their Governours 8. How come Dissenters bound by Parliament consent If it never was in their minds to trust them as Consenters for them yea and declare their own dissent as most of the Nation did lately against Prelacy and Liturgy yea and their chosen representatives Have such representatives more power to express our consent than we our selves 9. You unhappily erre with Hooker in your popular Politicks if you think that the Laws bind us only because we consent to them by our Representatives or that as such they make them Whereas it is as by Consenting in the Constitution they are made part of the Rullers or Legislators and not meerly as if we made the Laws by them 10. And as to Convocation consent how binds it all those that never consented to them How is the City of London so bound to Conform when they had not one chosen Clerk but only the Dignitaries in the Convocation that made us our Conformity the two chosen by them being refused by the Bishops 11. Will not you pass for an asserter of the Principles of Independency that not only say The Keys are given to the whole body and the Convocation represent the People c. but also that England is one Church but by consent without consenting to any one Constitutive Regent Church head The Independants are for a National Church meerly by confederacy and consent without National Government of it 12. You go further from the Episcopal Politicks than the Presbyterians do For they make an Aristocratical Regent Part but you make none 13. I doubt some Statesmen will be angry with you that say there is no power of Church Government in England but from the King as Head as Crumptâ—â— before Cousins Tables and others ordinarily 14. Do you make England in essentials any more one Church than England and any Foreigners agreeing are one Did the Synod of Dâ—rt make us one with them Do large Councils make many Nations one Church Did the Heptarchy make England one Kingdom when seven Kings Governed the whole by parts but none the whole as such 15. I beseech you think what you have done against the Parochial Diocesane and Provincial Churches in England Have none of these have not each of these a Regent Constitutive part Are none of them true Churches in sensu politico You dare not say No. If they are You have said that visible Churches as Parts unavoidably require a visible Head to the whole by which I bring in the Pope because you think Christ will not serve the turn And do you not say that all these Churches are parts of the Church of England And if you deny it to have one Regent part do you not then either destroy the rest or use the name Church equivocally to these several sorts so heterogeneal 16. I pray you tell us from whom our Arch-bishops receive their power If you say from the Bishops and so Inferiours or Equals may give power why may not Presbyters make Presbyters or Bishops and generare speciem If it must come from Superiours the Church of England hath none such 17. If the Peoples consent can make a National Church why may it not make an Independant or Presbyterian Church 18. If the Nations consent as such make the Church of England it is not made by Legislative power of King and Parliament 19. Do the Clergy represent the King or is he none of the Church 20. How prove you that the
Clergy represent the Laity in the Convocation 21. By your Rule if divers parties of Christians agree to set up divers forms of Church-Government with mutual forbearance they would be one National Church And so would Episcopal Presbyterians and Independants if the Law allowed them all 22. Was the Church of England the same thing in the days of H. 8. Ed. 6. Q. Mary Q. Eliz. c. 23. Who maketh National Churches in absolute Hereditary Monarchies where are no Parliaments to signifie popular consent 24. If every Law of Order be essential to your Church few Conformists are of it If only the true essentials why are not we also of it 25. How ill agree you with Mr. Cheny who maketh it Atheism Infidelity Blasphemy Impiety to assert Church-making consent or confederacies besides Baptism 26. But the best is you leave us in hope of Reformation for if Parliaments will but consent for us to take down Diocesanes lower and to reform Parish-Churches and alter Liturgy c. we are the National Church still And one prevailing Vote may prove us all consenters and make the Church quite another thing § 14. Yet he saith Page 299. By this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Answ I am one and I cannot see it nor so much as see how to know the Church it self nor who is a Member of it nor how any man can know it but he seems to me to make it a Church invisible But I see the Dissenters must be none of it 1. How was the Church of England known from Papists in the beginning of H. 8. or in the middle or in the end or how known when it began How was it known in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths days when the Papists came to Church or now as to Church-Papists How shall we know to which Church the late Bishop Bramhall and other Doctors belong who would have the Pope Govern us according to the Canons as Patriarch of the West principium unitatatis universalis and all go for Schismaticks that deny it Some call this the New-Church of England differing from the old one which was before Bishop Laud. 2. How shall one know how far consent is necessary to a Member and dissent unchurcheth him Lately a Doctor was accused for saying he scrupled to call the King according to the Liturgy Our most Religious King Mr. Jole of Sarral was suspended for not oftner wearing the Surplice and denying to pray in the Litany for Our most Gracious Queen Katherine and James Duke of York But these are small dissents The sense is the Churches Law and Doctrine and not the sound of words in various senses I have oft shewed in how many contrary senses the Conformists take the 39 Articles the Liturgy the words of Subscription and Declaration and the Oaths imposed How shall one know among all these who are or are not of your Church When you tell us that it is Agreeing in the Faith Government and Worship which is established by Law and then speak so hotly against the need and being of any common Government save the Civil at all established over the Church as a. National body and never distinguish any necessary parts of Faith Government and Worship from the rest nor tell us how to know them And when Conformists dissent in so many things some from Lay Chancellours Government by the Keys some in the sense of the Articles and the Nonconâ—oâ—â—â—ists say they consent to all that Scripture requireth and the meer Circumstantials determined by Law how shall you be known Either it is in the Essentials only or the Integrals also or also in all the Laws de Accedentibus that the Church of England by agreement is made that One Church 1. If it be only in Essentials is there either Confession Rubrick Canon or any Writer that hath told us which be those and all those and only those Essentials I never met with man that pretendeth to know them and therefore never met with man that can thus tell whether he be of the Church of England or not nor that can tell of others and who is not 2. To say it must be consent also in the Integrals that is necessary ad esse is a contradiction and is to make Integrals Essentials To say that it must be consent in all Laws of Accidents also is to make that an essential part which is no part Our loose confounding Disputers when they have lost the truth in such contradictions may say as Mr. Dodwell doth to me that I Cavil But will that answer help down all absurdities with reasonable men It 's plain that as the Papists Doctrine of defining Church-Members and Christians by no Essential Articles of Faith but by Probable Proposal of more or less doth make their Church invisible so doth this definition of the Church of England by Doctor Stillingfleet make theirs and leave us uncertain who is of it It makes me think what I hear Oliver the Usurper said to a Bishop that now is as I am credibly told Doctor how know you that you are a true Minister of Christ who answered him on Mr. Dodwell's Principles Because I have received Ordination by uninterrupted successive conveyance from true Bishops from the Apostles Saith he Are you sure they were all true Bishops and the succession uninterrupted Doctor will you take your Oath that you are thus a true Minister At which when he stuck Come come Doctor saith he there is a surer and a nearer way Certain I am that if Agreement in the sense of the 39 Articles or in all Forms and Ceremonies be necessary to constitute a Member of the Church of England abundance that subscribe are none that now go for such But if not I pray tell us why such as I also are not Members of your Church Do I more differ from you than Doctor Heylin Mr. Thorndike Mr. Dodwell and in a word than the party which adhered to Arch-bishop Laâ—d differed from the party which adhered to Bishop Abbot Whitgift and the Parliaments of those and after-times If the Church of England as such a one be constituted by no supreme Church-Government we are all of it so far as we consent to the Association and none as it is one Political body And what then becomes of its Laws and all the Treatises of its Church-Policy § 15. But yet the Doctor stops not here I unavoidably introduce Popery if I make a Constitutive Regent Church power necessary to a Church for then the Universal Church must have such Answ 1. It 's not necessary to an equivocal ungoverned Church such as our Worcestershire Association made But to a Political Governed Church it is 2. Mark here all you that go the Political Church way that your Doctor accuseth you more than the Nonconformists even of certain opening the door to Popery What if I had said so by you Is it such
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth
c. 3. That many of them deny all proper Sacramental causality of Grace 4. Specially Physical And Protestants make them not meer signs but investing signs 5. And ponere obicem is to want necessary moral qualification and action as aforesaid And now the Dr. had done well to tell me wherein I was very much mistaken § 15. He next saith The Cross is in no sence held to be an instrument appointed for conveying Grace Answ 1. Not by God for it is none of God's Ordinances 2. But that by men it is I have manifested if a moral objective moving and teaching means may be called an Instrument If not the word Instrument is noting to our case 1. To work on the soul of the adult by representation signification excitation as the word doth is to be an operative moral cause or means And this the Church ascribeth to it Pref. to Liturg. c. 2. The death of Christ and the benefits of it and reception into the Church and State of Christianity and the sense of our Engagement to fight under Christ's banner c. are Grace some of which is given by excitation and some the Relation by investiture § 16. And now whether I have only invented these objections to amuse and perplex mens consciences and this Dr. hath made all so plain that all may venture on it and he and all Ministers may deny them Christendom that dare not venture and cast out all from the Ministry that be not as bold as he I leave to consideration He next turneth to Mr. A. about bowing and so goeth to their Excommunication CHAP. XI Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicated for not Communicating when Excommunicated be guilty of Schism § 1. THeir Canons excommunicate ipso facto all that say Conformity is unlawful and many such like 1. He saith The excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but those who obstinately affirm it Answ Reader trust neither him nor me but read the words Can. 3 4 5 6. Whosoever shall affirm that the Church of England by Law established under his Majesty is not a true and an Apostolical Church let him be excommunicated ipso facto Whosoever shall affirm that the form of God's worship in the Church of England established by the Law and contained in the Book of Common-prayer is a corrupt superstitious or unlawful worship of God or containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the Scriptures let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till c. Whosoever shall affirm that any of the 39 Articles are in any part superstitious or erroneous or such as he may not with a good conscience subscribe unto let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till c. Whosoever shall affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law established are wicked antichristian or superstitious OR such as being commanded by lawful authority men who are zealously and Godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them OR as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be excommunicated ipso facto and not restored till he repent and publickly revoke such his wicked errours Can. 7. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Government of the Church of England under his Majesty by Arch-Bishops Bishops Deans Arch-Deacons and THE REST THAT BEAR OFFICE IN the same is antichristian OR repugnant to the word of God let him be excommunicate ipso facto c. Can. 8. Whosoever shall affirm that the form and manner of making and consecrating Bishops Priests or Deacons containeth ANY THING in it that is repugnant to the word of God let them be excommunicate ipso facto c. Can. 11. Whosoever shall affirm that there are within this Realm other Meetings Assemblies or Congregations of the Kings born subjects than such as by the Law of this Land are held and allowed which may rightly challenge to themselves the Name of true and lawful Churches let him be excommunicate ipso facto c. And now if the Reader will no more believe the Doctor it is not long of me If all this be no more than to excommunicate them that obstinately affirm the Ceremonies Antichristian impious or superstitious understanding them is not possible § 2. But I confess they excommunicate not men for secret thoughts We thank them for nothing It is but for telling their judgment And Dissenters may have many occasions to tell it The Kings Commission once allowed some of us to tell it The Demands Accusations calumniating Books and Sermons c. may call many to it § 3. He saith All Excommunication supposeth precedent Admonition Answ 1. They should do so The worse is yours because it doth not so It only alloweth admonition to repent for his restoration which made M. Anton. Spalatensis say so much against it 2. If it did oblige you to admonish us as you have done by your Books you know that this changeth not our judgments So that to be excommunicate before the admonition and after comes all to one But indeed when the Law ipso facto excommunicateth the Law it self is the admonition § 4. He addeth General excommunications though they be latae sententiae do not affect the particular persons till the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but the contumacy Answ Affecting is a word that signifieth what you please Ipso facto is for and upon the fact proved without any sentence of a judge While the fact only is thus made the full cause the contumacy need not be proved It 's true 1. That the fact must be proved 2. And then the Law is a sentence and Relatively affecteth the person as sentenced 3. But no persons else are obliged to avoid him till the fact be lawfully published But the man is excommunicate And 4. Whether the man that knoweth the Law and his own Fact be not bound himself to avoid the Churches Communion is a great Controversie And the plain truth is If it be a just Excommunication he is bound to forbear Communion in obedience to it As much as a silenced Minister is to forbear Preaching But if it be a sentence unjust and injustice be not so gross as to nullifie it still he must forbear But if it be so unjust as to be invalid he may Communicate till he be executively rejected As one so unjustly silenced may preach if he can for the case is much like The Reader would be displeased if I should cite him many Casuists in so plain a case 2. But no man doubteth but the General sentence of the Canon speaketh the sence of the Church and doth all that Law-makers can do before judgment And the Law is norma officii judicii obliging Subject and Judge § 5. It 's true that Linwood saith that a Declaratory sentence that is A Declaration that such a man is already sentenced by the Law is necessary to oblige any to the
thing the doubt is whether their undertaking to educate another mans Child be lawful while he is bound to do it himself 2. And whether men use to be serious in such undertakings which I never knew one perform nor seem to mean it save such as take poor mens kinsmens or dead mens children to keep as their own 3. And if it be done without serious intention Is it not to make perjury or perfidiousness and prophane taking God's name in vain to be the way of Christening and Covenanting with Christ in order to salvation § 4. This is a great point and he doth well to handle it diligently His explication of it is this p. 382. 1. The Church hath the power of the Keys True but not as he and the Brownists say The whole Church but only the Pastors 2. They may baptize capable subjects No doubt of it 3. Infants are capable subjects Answ But what Infants All or some Is this our satisfaction If it be All Infants then how come the Heathens Infants to be baptizable and have right when the Parents have none Then how great a deed of charity is it to bring an Army among them to baptize their Children by force When even Aquinas and other Papists say that Children may not be baptized against the Parents wills I have elsewhere at large proved 1. That Baptism is but the sealing of the Covenant and the delivering of possession by Ministerial Investiture and not the first gift or condition of our right to Christ and his benefits 2. That in the Adult faith and Repentance and heart-consent are the Conditions which Baptism after solemnly expresseth 3. That if a true penitent believing consenter die without Baptism he is saved and if tâ—…ptized adult die without faith repentance and heart-consent he is damned 4. That therefore all the adult must have an entitling condition to give them right first initially coram Deo to pardon of sin and then to be baptized which solemnly delivereth their full right before they can be lawfully baptized 5. That God dealeth not so differently with Infants and Adult as to require conditions of right in the later and none in the former as if they were all born with right 6. That the Covenant is made to the faithful and their seed and that Infants condition of right is that they be children of believers And that if both Parents be Infidels the Children are unclean but else they are holy And God that confoundeth not the Church and the World confoundeth not their Childrens case This I have fully proved in my Disp of Original sin and Treat of right to Sacraments 7. That Baptism sealeth and delivereth to the qualified subject the present pardon of sin and right to Christ and life as to adopted Children of God And therefore there must be some reason and proof of a right to it more than all Infants in the world have 8. That it is not a mans bringing them to baptism and speaking feignedly in their name that giveth them right to a sealed pardon and salvation It must be one that can prove himself entitled to represent the Child which none can that cannot say He is my own 9. If it were otherwise Atheists Infidels wicked men though Baptized could give no right to the sealed pardon or to the Investiture in a state of life to which they have no right themselves And if they represent no better Parents as such they can give them no right save coram Ecclesia when they are not infideles judicati 10. Nor doth it suffice to an Infants right that the Minister or Church be Christians Therefore to tell us that Infants are right subjects signifieth nothing till either 1. He tell us what Infants 2. Or prove that all Infants have right which he can never do And if he could I would easily prove that all dying Infants are saved whether Baptized or not As I can prove that true Christian Infants are § 5. While he gives us not the least satisfaction of Infants Right he tells us of difficulties on the other side if we lay it on Parents or Owners right And 1. He tells us of divers mens Opinions which the Reader will be loth I should digress to try having done it so largly in my Christ Direct and Treat of Right to Sacraments 2. He nameth the qualification which I â—â—â—rt A profession of the Christian faith not invalidated and saith nothing to disable it but that Others will reject it Others wild Opinions named goes for my Confutation And now I desire the Reader to see the Catalogue of the things we account sinful in Conformity in my first Plea for Peace and try how many of them the Doctor hath so much as meddled with And whether he think by these few touches he hath proved either our Conformity lawful or our Preaching unlawful or our Communion with those Christians who are not of his mind herein unlawful If he say again that he meddleth not with Ministers Conformity but the Peoples 1. Note how he hath passed by even the greatest things also in their case 2. Whether he meddle not with the Ministers case who seeketh to prove their preaching unlawful and so perswades them to be silent 3. Whether their case should not be so far meddled with as to prove the things which they think sinful to be lawful or their preaching unnecessary before the endeavours used against them well known be justified as needful to the Churches Peace CHAP. XIII Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth § 1. WHat advantage to the Drs. Cause the three Letters of the French Divines annexed can be to any that will not be decoyed by meer sounds and shews I know not But could we know these things following we might better understand the judgment of the Writers Quest 1. Whether he that sought their judgment did make them understand what all our present Impositions and Acts of Conformity are and what alterations are made in the Church of England since the beginning of Bishop Lands power 2. Whether he made them truly understand the difference between the ancient Episcopacy and the English Diocesan frame in all its parts 3. Whether he did put the Case as about Subscribing â—â— Declaring Covenanting or Swearing Assent and Consent to all things and practising accordingly or only of living in Communion with them which do such things 4. Whether he put the case as of denying active Communion in the practice of unlawful things or as denying Communion in the rest which are lawful 5. Whether he made them understand that we are ipso facto excommuncate by their Canon for telling our judgment 6. Whether he made them understand that it was about 2000 Ministers that were silenced and what men are in many of their places and what claim their ancient Flocks lay to many of them and what men they are and what they did to prevent all our divisions 7. Whether he made them understand what measure of Communion we