you cannot well plead the Cause of our Separation from Rome without pleading something for Dissenters But to return to your Impartial Account p. 209. You say Violation of the Unity of the Church where there is no sufficient Reason to justify it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden and in some respects aggravated beyond it Preface p. 45. All which returns upon your selves if the Arâ—h-Bishop's Words may take place And consider further seriously whether there be any sufficient Reason to justifie the pressing and imposing of those things which might lawfully be forborn when the imposing of them will certainly cause a Violation of the Churches Unity and Peacâ— Yet this is a thing you take no notice of unless it be to justify it As p. 76. The Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Indâ—pendents Aâ—â—baptists and Quakers And pag. 59. So it is impossible for them to answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Now lay these together and what follows but that as much is to be pleaded for the English Ceremonies and other things imposed which the Non-câ—nformists stick at as can be pleaded for the baptizing of Infants or against Re-baptization and I may add or against the way of the Quakers In the Fifty Queries concerning Infants Right to Baptism I set that down last which â— desired they would specially observe Scil. Whether the Anabaptist's Schism be not worse than their simple Opinion And whether it be not desireable and possible that some Way be found out and Terms laid down in which good and sober Men on both sides might agree and hold Communion as Christians concerning which something is proposed there from Mr. B. to others Consideration This the Author of the Anti-Queries took little notice of which engaged me to mind him of it again in my Reply p. 25 26. And yet I have met with no other Answer from him but that he is loth at present to give an Answer to it intreating all his Friends to take it into Consideration because it is a matter of Moment and common Concern T. G's Controversy c. epitomised p. 64. From whence I conclude if such Terms of Moderation were offered they would be hard put to it scarce know what to say for a standing off and denying to have Communion with Christians of a different Perswasion but they would have enough to say against your Terms and that from your self and not only in your Irenicum but in your Rational Account p. 209. It is a very necessary Enquiry what the cause of the distance is and where the main Fault lies and it being acknowledge that there is a possibility that Corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth Men to communicate with a Church in all those they will say in any Corruptions its Communion may be tainted with it seems evident to Reason that the cause of the Breach must lie there where the Corruptions are owned and imposed as Conditions of Communion c. I should have hoped that at least you would have granted the conditions put upon Ministers to be very hard yet I find nothing but a deep silence here Tho Mr. Cheny says I am satisfied that it is in it â—elf a great and `dreadful Sin to silence the Non-conformists It seems here is a provoking Sin which you was willing to overlook tho once in your Sermon p. 20. you were very near it 6. Do you speak Impartially p. 378 379. when you tell us you wonder that none of us have taken any care to put any stop to Separation or to let you know where you may fix and see an end of it what Scruples are to be allowed and what not I will say nothing for those who are better able to speak for themselves but for my self I thought I had told you plainly and sufficiently out of your Irenicum if you will not be offended that I call it yours where I would have you fix Let Christians stand upon the same terms now as they did in the time of Christ and his Apostles Do not add other conditions of Church-Communion than Christ hath done As Rector of Sutton p. 6 7. See also p. 59. If you make no new Terms and yet others will separate from you still the Sin is theirs but if indeed you add other Terms then beware that you be not found the Schismaticks Do not turn me off here as you do Mr. Baxter's Way of Concord You â—â—â—not justly say we go on in impracticable Notions here or dividing Principles When you have that Word Preface p. 38. As tho he had been Christ's Plenipotentiary upon Earth You forgot that others might as well apply it to the Rector of Sutton for publishing his Irenicum And I hope you will not deny but we are backt with great Authority when you consider what King Iames tells Cardinal Du Perron by the Pen of Isaac Causabon which Mr. Baxter takes notice of Direct p. 752. His Majesty thinketh that for Concord there is no nearer way than diligently to separate things necessary from the unnecessary and to bestow all our labour that we may agree in the things necessary and that in things unnecessary there may be place given for Christian Liberty A Golden Sentence And there is nothing that can be proved necessary but it must be either expresly taught or commanded in the Word of God or deduced thence by necessary Consequence And that of the Lord Bacon Essay 3. is considerable who for the true placing the Bonds of Vnity would have Points fundamental and of Substance in Religion truly discerned and distinguished from Points not meerly of Faith but of Opinion Order or good Intention And Chillingworth is full of such impracticable Notions if they deserve to be so called p. 197. He that could assert Christians to that Liberty which Christ and his Apostles left them must needs to Truth a most Heroieal Service And seeing the over-valuing of the Differences among Christians is one of the greatest Maintainers of the Schisme of Christendom c. p. 198. Certainly if Protestants be faulty in this matter of playing the Pope it is for doing it too much and not too little Take away these Walls of Separation and all will quickly be one Take away this Persecuting Burning Cursing Damning of Men for not subscribing to the Words of Men as the Words of God Require of Christians only to believe Christ and to call no Man Master but him only Let those leave claiming Infallibility that have no Title to it and let them that in their Words disclaim it disclaim it likewise in their Actions In a Word take away Tyranny which is the Devils Instrument to support Errors and Superstitions and Impieties I say take away Tyranny and restore Christians to their just and full
limiting and inclosing the Catholick Church and if any disturb the Peace of this Church and here you do not 〈◊〉 the most peaceable Dissenters that only meet for the Worship of God and separate no farther from your Church than as it is not Catholick you go on The Civil Magistrate may justly inflict Civil Penalties upon them for it Is this your Mind that all that submit not tâ— those new federal Rites as they are supposed and teaching Signs and Symbols spoken of should be both debarred of Church-Priviledges and laid under Civil Penalties as disturbers of thâ— Churches Pâ—ace Then I cannot but wish that Governours may have more Moderation and Clemency or poor Dissenters more Faith and Patience than you shew Christian Charity herein But if they are as near the Primitive Church and as much in Communion with the Catholick Church as you are yea and in Communion with you still so sar as you are Catholick what great reason can you have so severely to condemn them I hope the Doctrine of the Non-conformists generally is sound their Worship agreeable to the Word The only Question then remaining seems to be By what Authority they do these things And who gave them Authority Now it is true they cannot pretend Authority from the Bishops but if they can prove they have Authority from Christ is not that sufficient If he hath called them to the work of the Ministry and commandeth them to be diligent and faithful in it according to their Abilities and Opportunities me thâ—nks Men should not deny their Authority And whether may not such Societies as you call nâ—w Churches return what you cite p. 179 180. out of Calvin Instit. l. 4. c. 1. n 9. as proving them to be true Churches They having the Word of God truly preached and Sacraments administred accâ—rding to Christ's Institution Now he saith as you have him where ever thâ—se Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to Humane Conveniences And therefore if you did not look only on one side you might probably see that you are no more allowed wilfully to separate from them than they are from you And as that Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared as you have it p. 186. That there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own Opinions or Practices So why might not the Non-conformists and their Hearers be taken into or acknowledged in Communion with the Church of England without renouncing their Opinions or Practices they being certainly as far from Idolatry or Superstition as any of the Lutheran Churches As the Helvetian Churches with you p. 187 declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him Even so because the Non-Conformists consent with you in Doctrine do not break them off from your Communion for their difference about Ceremonies May not several Churches differ in Modes and Forms of Worship and yet have Communion with one another Some Difference you cannot but grant betwixt your Cathedral Service and that in common Country Churches p. 146 147. You will not say the Churches in other Nations that have not the same Rule with you are Schismaticks No not though such came over into England and lived among you And what if the old Liturgy and that new one which you cannot but remember the compiling of and presenting to the Bishops at the Savoy 1661. had both passed and been allowed for Ministers to use as they judged most convenient might not several Ministers and Congregations in this case have used different Modes of Worship without Breach of the Churches Peace or counting each other Schismaticks Would you have called those new separate Churches that made use of the new reformed Liturgy And what if a Dutch Church was in your Parish Would you disclaim Communion with them because they had some Rules and Orders different from yours And what if divers of your Parish living near it should joyn with that Congregation would you thence conclude that they erected a new separate Church And as the Canon 1640. speaks of bowing towards the East or Altar That they which use this Rite should not despise them which use it not c. if now our King and Parliament like true Catholick Moderators should put forth an Henoticum make an healing Law enjoyning Conformists and Non-conformists that agree in the same Faith and Worship for Substance to attend peacably on their Ministery and serve God and his Church the best they can whether they use the Liturgy and Ceremonies or no without uncharitable Censures and bitter Reflections upon one another either in Word or Writing would you yet say that the Non-conformists Assemblies not following your Rules and Orders were no other than new separate Churches 5. I know no Laws nor Ecclesiastical Canons that the present Non-conformists have made And non-entis nulla sunt praedicata But if your meaning be that it is enough to prove them New Churches that they come not up to your Laws and Church-Rules and therefore are so 〈…〉 as they conform not to you I would argue thus Either Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary to Communion with the Church of England and to cut off the charge of being of a New â—hurch or not If Conformity in all things be not necessary here why may not sober Dissenters that own the Church of England for a true Church and profess the same Faith and worship God in no other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England as you say p. 160. Mr. B. declared in writing and as I told you a good Lawyer pleadeth Rector of Sutton p. 26 50. I say why may not such be owned as in Communion with the Church of England Why do you charge them with erecting new separate Churches meerly because they differ from you in some alterable Circumstances and separable Accidents not necessary to Churches Concord and Communion I see you dare not say that those things wherein they differ from you are any parts of Worship So they are of the same Faith and agree with you in all parts of Worship And is not all this with their owning themselves to be be of the Church of England so far as it is Catholick a bidding fair for your Reception of them and acknowledging them still in Communion with you And then why have you so many words of such being no good Christians because Members of no Church as pag. 104 105 110. f. If Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be not necessary pray tell us what is necessary and what not what things may be dispensed with and what not Rector of
B. one might soon guess what their Sentence or Verdict would be If I seem here and sometimes elsewhere to digress a little yet I think in reason you should overlook it I would hope that in time you may be convinced of a greater Digression in the scope of your late Writings 6. If you and the Church of England will not be so favourable towards those distinct Societies that are not under your Church-Rules as to acknowledg them in Communion with you yet by what you and Chillingworth say I see not but they may be still in Communion with the Catholick Church and Members of it Knot talketh thus to our Reproach Charity maint part 1. c. 5. § 38. Protestants cannot avoid the note of Schism at least by reason of their mutual Separation from one another For most certain it is that there is very great difference between the Lutherans the rigid Calvinists and the Protestants of England But it is observable what Chillingworth says p. 255. Eighthly to that That all the Members of the Catholick Church must of necessity be united in external Communion Which tho it were much to be desired it were so yet certainly cannot be perpetually true Divers times it hath happened as in the case of Chrysostome and Epiphanius that particular Men and particular Churches have upon an over-valued difference either renounced Communion mutually or one of them separated from the other and yet both have continuâ—d Members of the Catholick Church Here let us suppose some unhappy difference to arise among your selves as if some were for the publick condemning of your Irenicum some against it some offended at those Ministers who appear not as zealous against Dissenters as you have shewed your self and others offended as much at you and them some taking offence at those that bow at the word Iesus or bow towards the Altar and others taking the like offence at those who scruple or forbear such Practice Suppose now the contention was carried so high that the disagreeing Parties refused Communion with one another hereupon and if it came to that I would know which of these should be the new Church Or whether both Parties might not yet be in Communion with the Church of England And much more may not the same Catholick Church hold Conformists and Protestant Dissenters And you give us this Note Ratinal Account p. 331. He that sâ—parates only from particular Churches as to such things which concern not their Being is only separated from the Communion of those Churches and not the Catholick Now will you say those Rules and Orders about which all the Difference is betwixt you and the Non-conformists concern the Being of your Church I doubt you will never be able to convince many but the Church of England might be every jot as well without them But if it should happen that any Error or Corruption is to be found therein then you have more to say for those you here oppose Ibid. and pag. 332. which is therefore more properly a Separation from the Errors than the Communion of such a Church Wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some Corruptions though if these Corruptions be injoyned as Conditions of Communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it follows not that I am sâ—parated from the external Communion of the Catholick Chuch but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches till I may safely joyn with them Which you illustrate there by a Comparison where you have these remarkable Words And if several other Persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together Do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own Safety c. So Chillingworth speaks as like you as if one had taken his Hints from the other pag. 298. He is for distiguishing not confounding these two departing from the Church and departing from some general Opinions and Practices which did not constitute but vitiate the Church More he hath to that purpose But that which I would specially note out of him here to shew the Harmony and Consent betwixt you which otherwise should have come in before pag. 269. A Man may possibly leave some Opinion or Practice of a Church says he and continue still a Member of that Church provided that whâ—t he forsakes be not one of those things wherein the Essence of the Church consists Whereas peradventure this Practice may be so involved with the external Communion of this Church that it may be simply impossible for him to leave this Practice and not to leave the Churches external Communion I cite such Passages as these because I would have the World know and take notice what Friends you are sometimes to poor Non-conformists That if any should now send an Hue and Cry after them as after Murderers you are willing they should take Sanctuary either in your Church or in the Church Catholick the New Church your second Conclusion speaks of being not so safe Now my second Conclusion is this 2. That many of those Societies which you condemn do not separate from the Church of England many of them have ordinary external Communion with you and though in their Worship they do not in all things follow your Church-Rules and Orders yet their Worship cannot be proved contrary but is agreeable to Scripture-Rule And as for those who are not satisfied to go so far as to hold external Communion with you yet having Communion with you in the same Faith it were a very desirable thing that the Bars to their full Communion with you were removed if they be such things as are not necessary And in the mean time possibly those New Churches are better than no Churches And indeed it is matter of wonder to me if you have no more Charity for such have no better Thoughts of them than of those idle loose profane Persons that wholly neglect and contemn the Worship of God that never go to any Church at all I would say more to this did I not think enough is said already Now I come to your last Conclusion 3. As to things in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermined by the Law of God and in matters of meer Order and Decency and wholly as to Form and Government every one notwithstanding what his private Judgment may be of them is bound for the Peace of the Church of God to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church But would you not lead us here into a Maze a Labyrinth without any Clew to guide us out Let us now see how Pertinent and Material this is to your purpose Here first I must suppose this Question viz. How far or in what things is every Man bound whatever his private Iudgment be for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church And your Answer is every
teach not Heresy nor preach down Holiness c. and deny us not their Communion unless we will sin or a Conformists that will hold Communion with none but his own Party but separates from all other Churches in the Land Ib. p. 41. Is he a greater Separatist that confesseth them to be a true Church and their Communion lawful but preferreth another as fitter for him or he that denieth Communion with true worshipping Assemblies as unlawful to be communicated with when it is not so If the former then will it not follow that condemning them as no Church is a Diminution or no Aggravation of Separation and the local presence of an Infidel or Scorner would be a less separate state than the absence of their Friends If the latter which is certain then will it not follow that if we can prove the Assemblies lawful which they condemn they are the true Separatists that condemn them and deny Communion with them declaring it unlawful Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47 or 49. Q. 80. And whether is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from one Church when it is upon unwarrantable Cause or Reasons Ib. p. 31. Now how many of the Dissenters frequently communicate with them while they generally refuse shun and condemn our Assemblies Are there no true Churches to be found in the World that have no Bishops of a superior order over Pastors And were there not true Churches in England in that long Interval of Episcopal Government And are not they as justly to be charged with Schism and Separation from those true Churches which were before the re-establishment of Episcopacy as they that are commonly charged by those Encroachers and Invaders of other Mens Rights Vid. Sacril Desert p. 60. Q. 81. Seeing the Universal Church is certainly the highest Species whether have any Authority on pretence of narrower Communion in lower Churches to change Christ's terms of Catholick Communion or to deprive Christians of the right of being loved and received by each other or to disoblige them from the duty of loving and receiving each other Whether can humane Power made by their own Contracts change Christ's Laws or the Priviledges or Forms of Christ's own Churches Way of Concord p. 111. § 14. Q. 82. Whether the greatest and commonest Schism be not by dividing Laws and Canons which causlessly silence Ministers scatter Flocks and decree the unjust Excommunication of Christians and deny Communion to those that yield not to sinful or unnecessary ill-made Terms of Communion ibid. third Part p. 13. § 43. And if any proud passionate or erroneous Person do as Diothrephes cast out the Brethren undeservedly by unjust Suspensions Silencings or Excommunications whether this be not tyrannical Schism First Plea c p. 41. And as we say of the Papists that they unjustly call those Men Schismaticks whom they first cast out themselves by unjust Excommunication may we not say so of any others especially if either for that which is a Duty or for some small mistake which is not in the Persons power to rectify no greater than most good Christians are guilty of their Church-Law says he shall be excommunicate ipso facto ibid. p. 104. See also Answ. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 47. or 49. § 8. Q. 83. Whether making sinful Terms of Communion imposing things forbidden by God on those that will have Communion with them and expelling those that will not so sin whether this be not heinous Schism First Plea c. p. 41 42. Q. 84. Whether all those would not be deeply guilty of such Schism who by talk writing or preaching justify and cry it up and draw others into the Guilt and reproach the Innocent as Schismaticks for not offending God Ib. Q. 85. If any will confine the Power or Exercise of the Church-Keys into so few Hands as shall make the Exercise of Christ's Discipline impossible or shall make Churches so great or Pastors so few as that the most of the People must needs be without Pastoral Oversight Teaching and publick Worship and then will forbid those People to commit the care of their Souls to any other that would be Pastors indeed and so would compel them to live without Christ's Ordinances true Church-Communion and Pastoral Help whether this would not be Schismatical and much worse Ib. p. 44. Q. 86. When able faithful Pastors are lawfully sâ—t over the Assemblies by just Election and Ordination if any will causlessly and without Right silence them and command the People to desert them and to take to others for their Pastors in their stead oâ— whom they have no such knowledg as may encourage them to such a change Whether this can be defended from the charge of Schism As Cyprian in the case of Novatian says that he could be no Bishop because another was rightful Bishop before â— Ib. p. 49 50. Q. 87. Whether the way to heal us be not 1. To approve the best 2. To tolerate the tolerable 3. To have Sacraments free and not forced 4. To restrain the Intolerable 5. This to be the Test of Toleration Whether such tolerated Worship do more good or hurt in true impartial Judgment 6. Magistrates keeping all in Peace Way of Concord third Part p. 144. Q. 88. Whether it be not a weakning of the King's Interest to divide his Subjects and build up unnecessary Walls of Partition between them and to keep them in such Divisions seeing a Kingdom divided against it self cannot stand And whether it be not unsafe and uncomfortable to a Prince to rule a divided mutinous People but sweet and safe to rule them that are united in mutual Love Whether they that would lay the Peoples Concord upon uncapable Terms would not bring the King's Interest in his Peoples Love and willing Obedience and ready Defence of him into too narrow a Bottom making him the King of some causlessly divided and espoused Party which must be set up to the Oppression of all the rest who are as wise and just and loyal as they Second Plea c. p. 76. § 24. Si in necessariis sit Vnitas In Non-necessariis Libertas In uâ—risque Charitas Optimo certe loco essent res nostrae To make a rounder number I may add from Mr. M. Godwyn his Negro's and Indians Advocate pleading for the Instructing of them and so admitting them into the Church a Book lately Printed and Dedicated to the Arch Bishoâ— of Canterbury Q. 89. Whether Is the wilful neglecting and opposing of it as he says in the Title-Page no less than a manifest Apostacy from the Christian Faith Can no Christian ever justify his omitting any possible lawful Means for the Advancement of his Religion as he says p. 91. Are all professed Christians absolutely bounâ— in their Places to endeavour the same by their Vow in Baptism and their very Profession Q. 90. Then are they not bound in their Places to endeavour the Advancement of Religion as well at home as abroad And do they not owe as much Service herein for Christ's sake towards their own Country-men as towards Strangers Should not English-men be as well concerned for English-men as for Indians And when the State of Religion is so visibly declining in England Atheism Ignorance Error Profaneness Popery and Superstition encreasing and getting up so fast amongst us is he for any great Advancement of Religion that would send away all Non-conformists if there be thousands of them to his Negro's and Indians for this wise Reason that There is no want of their Labours at home FINIS ADVERTISEMENT THe Readers is desired to take notice that these Papers were sent to London by the Author on the latter end of February or beginning of March last but by reason of the multitude of Pamphlets they could not get through the Press sooner The Ingenuous Reader is â—â—so desired to pass by the Errata the Author being remote from the Press these few he hath observed in some of the Sheets he hath seen viz. ERRATA PAge 5. l. 6 r. above P. 20 l. 24. r. do you not P. 21. l. 12. r. Wages P. 22. l. 22. r. Contrarywise P. 23. l. 24. r. and. P. 24. l. 18. dele down P. 28. l. 1. r. Triarios P. 57. l. 6. r. single-soal'd P. 62. l. 29. r. excite greater P. 63. l. 24. r. Church P. 70. l. 30. r. Inobedientia P. 72. l. 19 20. r. betray P. 81. l. 35. r. for P. 83. l. 36 r. did he at all
and doubted not when I was writing those former Papers but I could have made some use of it but I could not then meet with the Book for want of which I looked on those Collections as incompleat Truly Sir I was in hope the learned Doctor had retained that same Spirit of Moderation towards his dissenting Brethren which those sober moderate Principles he hath published and commended unto others heretofore spake him to have How strange is it that the Reverend Doctor should ever forget the Rector of Sutton And is it not as strange that he should be for silencing such a one as of Scismatical Principles Or to speak more plainly should be ashamed to own him in that worthy Work so full of Learning and Judgment meriting Praise rather than Censure But it is too plain here he hath deserted the Rector of Sutton and that in a Matter wherein he was in the right and had the strongest Reason on his side and hath given up the Cause to such an imposing Party as before e had condemned And what is the matter that the Reverend Doctor is so highly offended at me for desiring he would renew his old Acquaintance with one so near him and be friends again None in the World being nearer to him if that be true Proximus sum egomet mihi unless he will say and make that good in none of the best sence Ego non sum ego Now I am heartily sorry if we may see Reason to change our Opinion of him as he says we may of some Persons as well as Things in twenty Years time Preface pag. 76. Sure I am it either does or ought to grieve me at heart to see his Hand at such dividing Work who of all the dignified Persons in England I had thought was specially engaged and hoped also was as well enclined to promote Union what in him lay but not to widen Differences by pressing and pleading so hard for Dividing-Terms When certain Bishops were met that sought nothing more than that poor Athanasius might be oppressed Doliâ— Câ—lumniis malis Artibus Paphnutius seeing it rose up and took Maximus who as I remember had been a Confessor by the hand saying Neque te decet unà inter istos sedere So I thought it least became the Reverend Doctor to appear with the forwardest in condemning his dissenting Brethren whose Cause he had so well pleaded in time past He begins his Preface with a Story of the learned and excellent Bishop Iewell which I leave to others to examine But here I call to mind the Story of Bishop Lindsey a Scotish-Bishop who before he came to his Dignity had given this Question at St. Andrew's Whether things indifferent once abused and for their Abuse abolished c. Negatur Where he could bid Defiance to those that were for retaining such Ceremonies Yet afterwards he was a zealous Contender for them turning Disce pati into Dissipate And the great complaint of him was that in dealing with his Brethren he remembred not what he was once himself that he pittied not his former Case as some of them said in their Persons as Augustine did the Manichees greater Hereticks than he took them to be Let them be fierce rigorous against you who never were deceived with the like Error as they see you But as for me I can use no such Rigor against you with whom I ought to bear now as I did at that time with my self c. Thus I could wish the Doctor would be as favourable as it becometh him to be in his Censures of his Brethren who are very much of the same mind he was of once And therefore I shall once again apply my self to him Reverend Sir I do not very well know whether that Title The Rector of Sutton committed with the Dean of St. Paul's makes you more angry or merry This I know those Papers of mine went out of my hands without any Title who put that to it I know not The Title you say Preface p. 71. Was enough to make the common People imagine this was some busie Iustice of Peace who had taken them both at a Conventicle And I confess the word Committed might puzzle those that could not English bonos inter sese committere there p. 7. But sure you had no thought of my being a Iustice of Peace any more than I should suspect the Dean of St. Paul's since I have heard of and seen what he hath both preached and written against them would frequent Conventicles However you rub up my Memory here that I have one thing to put you in mind of though perhaps you 'l call me a busie Informer for it in your Next And yet call me at your pleasure so that it may incline you to more favourable Thoughts of truly Religious Assemblies such as you have condemned as Conventicles and separate Meetings In the former times of England's Distractions and Confusions I being unsatisfied of the Lawfulness of keeping in publick either those days of Thanksgiving for Victories or of Fasting and Prayer for a Blessing on those Counsels and Forces that then were as appointed it happened that Mr. S. preached in my place upon one of these Fast-days I suppose at the Request of some but unknown to me The Text in Deut. For this is your Wisdom c. which some remember still though it is about twenty Years since when I at the same time had a private Meeting at St. Lawrence's as one called it This I confess may look something like a personal Reflection but my end here is that you would be pleased to resolve me these Queries viz. Whether ever you accounted this Act Schismatical preaching without the Consent of the Rector of the Parish Or the Assembly that joyned at that time Schismaticks Yet was here no breach of Order Or were there no Churches in England then or till your establisht Rule came in And yet Sir I had never the less Esteem of Mr. S. at that time or of others who were satisfied to go farther than I durst Again Whether was our private Meeting at that time a sinful Conventicle when the far greater part of the Parish was with him at Church I hope you will grant it was a lawful because a Loyal Conventicle But so much to your Reflection on the Title of my former Papers Now Sir consider whether we have not more just Exceptions against this of yours 1. The unreasonableness of Separation Here 1. Consider whether you do not condemn that as Separation which is not And is that reasonable all Assemblies distinct from yours are not separate Meetings as the World is used in an evil sence no though they differ in some unnecessary Mode or Circumstances of Worship many that ordinarily joyn with you in the substantial parts of Worship and meet not in Opposition yet I cannot discern but their Meetings fall under your Censure as much as others because they keep not to your establish'd Rule when Preface pag.
abroad how did it shake the Heavens and darken the Skies O Lord my Heart trembleth to think upon it how many godly and worthy learned Preachers were silenced deprived and greatly disgraced How were the holy Ministers divided and distracted How were the Christian Subjects grieved and offended and the Papists and wicked Men encouraged and emboldened What a damp brought it to all Godliness and Religion and since that time what horrible Wickedness Whoredom Drunkenness and all shameless Filthiness and what grievous Plagues of God one succeeding another have followed evey good Christian Subject must needs see and lament So he who was no Separatist And I hope Sir you and I are agreed that these things last spoken of were no part of England ' s Reformation And now Sir give me leave to tell you in some of your own Words Preface p. 47. We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had no more to plead for it than we have indeed to plead for such mischievous Impositions And this seems to have been the sence of the Queen's Council in that Letter which the modest Enquiry p. 16 17. lays before you Therefore Sir I beseech you as you would not blast the Credit and Honour of the Reformation place it not in such things as rather brought a Deformation on us Here I know not well how to reconcile you to your self For p. 365. You say 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 And Preface p. 53 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 but not a word of providing for so many poor Congregations and dark corners of the Land that have need of them Are great Motives on one side But the weighty Considerations on the other side pag. 54. And double in number too as you reckon So here I see your Mind as you hold the Scales you might and would determine that there is no sufficient Reason to alter those Terms of Communion which in the great Wisdom of our Church were setled for the sake of such whose Scruples are groundless and endless For certainly those Arguments that are only plausible with you would not weigh down such as are strong and cogent nor a few Motives weigh down more weighty Considâ—rations But then what did you think of when you put that Question Preface p. 81. Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies and some late Declarations and doubtful Expressions beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences and the Peace and Stability of this Church And how happy had England been if such things had not been so over-valued As to this material Question you deliver your Opinion you say freely and impartially How Sir what Are you for altering what was setled in so great Wisdom by Men of so great Integrity such indefatigable Industry such profound Iudgment Is this for the Honour of our Reformation Is not this to blast the Credit of the Reformation I shall not take upon me to animadvert upon the whole of your Answer to this material Question presuming it will be scann'd by some of better Judgment Only one or two things I cannot but take notice of So I heartily thank you for that P. 82. 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 only here I would say Duty in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a Freedom in joyning in a full Communion Now thanks for thus much and hold to it Sir Tho I have two great and learned Men of the Church of England worthy of Note with you just at hand that grant as much of other parts of God's Worship as you do of Sacraments scil that they should be free from all Exceptions See Hales of Schism in Miscel. p. 216 217 218. And you were once of his Mind Irenic p. 120. And Chillingworth p. 180. If all Men would believe the Scripture and freeing themselves from Prejudice and Passion would sincerely endeavour to find the true Sence of it and live according to it and require no more of others but to do so nor denying their Communion to any that do so would so order their publick Service of God that all which do so may without Scruple or Hypocrisy or protetestation against any part of it joyn with them in it who does not see that c. Again I cast my Eye on that p. 87. where you would have indulged Persons to pay Twelve pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which you say cannot be complained of as any heavy Burthen Which such will not thank you for You would have them indulged and not indulged And is Twelve Pence a Week no burden to those that with hard Labour have much ado to maintain their Families can scarce clear Twelve Pence per Week See what it is to be rich in this World that makes some insensible of the low Estate others live in And would you have Servants thâ— polâ—â—d too tho their Wages may not amount to so much But now at last I come to that which I said makes you hardly reconcileable to your 〈◊〉 Preface p. 92. Such a Review made by wise and peâ—â—â—able Mâ—n not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far froâ— being a Disâ—onâ—ur to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it And the likâ— you 〈◊〉 say of removing those Bars to Communion in Saâ—â—â—ments becâ—â—â— it would be a paâ—t of Christian Wisdom Now lay things together Dr. Stilling says Preface p. 53 54. Tâ—ere are strong Objections and weighty Consideratiâ—â—â— against the Alteration of the established Laws And p. 364. would not take upon him to determine Whether there be sufficient Reason to 〈…〉 terms of Communiâ—â— settled And yet Dr. Sâ—lling says Preface p 82 92. That an Alteration would be a part of Christian Wisdom and so far from being a 〈◊〉 to this Church that it would add to the Gloâ—â— of it And 〈◊〉 on I put this Query Whether Man are justly charged as blâ—sting the Honour of the Reformation for dissenting in such things which it would be the Churches Glory to alter 3. Are you Impâ—rtial in the Account you give of the old-Non-Conformists as if it was their general Sence that Ministers were to forbear all
hearing of Sermons c and that frequently too to be lawful Now this is more than you allow to Dissenters pag. 98. 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 But is it possible that Mr. B. 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 Here you say in Effect that let Parishes be never so large and the Necessities of Souls never so urgent the Assemblies of Dissenters are not desirable nor to be encouraged because not under you establish'd Rule But either you must grant it may be lawful to joyn occasionally and that frequently too with the Non-conformists or you must judg them worse than Popish Teachers and say that it was better for Men to hear these than such as Mr. B. c. I know not whether you might fear the least countenancing of occasional Communion with Non-conformists lest any should thence argue from your own Words that constant Communion with them is a Duty I am thinking however that the Papists may thank you for so much Kindness to them that you grant it lawful for Protestants to be occasionally present in some parts of their Worship And let them alone to make their best of what you say you are sure will follow p. 176. and p. 77. As far as Men judg Communion lawful it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what Denomination soever the Persons pass Because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful If they can get Protestants to joyn with them ordinarily though but in some parts of their Worship at first its possible they would gain far more Proselites by it than Non-conformists have drawn or would draw into Separation You seem to suppose great Force and Virtue in that Salvo p. 156. 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 As if a Christian was only obliged to Communion with some one particular Church Yet you will look upon your self not only as a Member of the Church of England but as a Member of the Catholick Church And as you are a Member of the Catholick Church it may possibly sometimes fall out that you may be obliged to have Communion occasionally with a Dutch Church or a French Church And if Non-conformists with their Assemblies may be proved as sound parts of the Church Catholick as others you can freely have Communion with and while they differ from you in nothing but if the same was removed your Churches might be every jot as sound and pure I can see no sufficient Reason why you might not as lawfully have Occasional Communion with them and then for ought I know you may be obliged thereunto it may be a Duty Because you wholly overlook this I thought fit to take notice of it And further I would put you in mind of your own Arguments pag. 157. viz. 1. The general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful Means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church And here I ask If there be not as great an Obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace or promote it with all Christians as with all Men And they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them Rom. 12. 18. And if you supposed the present Dissenters to be as bad as the Donatiâ—â— which you cannot in reason suppose yet your Learned and Excellent Hales says Miscel. of Schism p. 208. Why might it not be lawful to go to Church with the Donatists if occasion so require And Ibid. p. 209. In all publick Meetings pretending Holiness so there be nothing done but what true Devotion and Piety break why may not I be present in them and use Communication with them 2 The particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. And one would think such as have attained so much Knowledg as to see it lawful to joyn with the Roman Church in some parts of Wâ—â—ship might know it cannot but be as lawful at least to joyn in Worship with Non-conformiâ—ts 5. Are you not partial when you lay this down p. 157. As 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 c. yet you tell us not what things those are neither the time when they were pressed thereunto and refused the same And I never heard of any Motions or Overtures for Peace that were reasonable made to them which they refused But you never take notice of it as any provoking Sin in those that would not hearken to their most just and earnest Petition for Peace Might not they with a good Conscience have forborn those needless Impositions which they very well knew would be so grievous and burdensome to many And might not so much have been expected from them as they would profess themselves to be for Vnity and Peace May I not here return your own Words pag. 159. Was ever Schisâ—â— made so light a matter of and the Peace and Unity of Christans valued at so low a Rate that for the Prevention of the one and the Preserevation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done Or as I would say that the imposing of things indifferent and not necessary in their own Judgment but things doubtful or unlawful in the Judgment of others might not be forborn Now Sir are you for palliating so great Sin as the causing of Schism and Dissention in the Church when you know The Obligation which lieth upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church which you give us again p. 209. And I find you citing these words of A. B. Laud in your Rational Account p 324 Nor is he a Christian that would not have Unity might he have it with Truth But I never said nor thought that the Protestants made this Rent Dissenting Protestants say we The cause of the Schism is yours for you thrust us from you because we called for Truth and redress of Abuses And there at the End of pag. 102. You could not but judg it a very prudent Expression of his Lordship That the Church of England is not such a Shreâ— to hâ—r Children as to deny her Blessing or denounce an Anathema against them if some peaceably dissent in some Particulars remoter from the Foundation c. Where I observe
Liberty of captivating their Vnderstanding to Scripture only and as Rivers when they have a free Passage run all to the Ocean so it may well be hoped by God's Blessing that universal Liberty thus moderated may quickly reduce Christendom to Truth and Vnity This Citation being to long I shall add but one more out of him and that a shorter p. 209. This is most certain and I believe you will easily grant it that to reduce Christians to Vnity of Communion there are but two ways that may be conceived probable The one by taking away diversity of Opinions touching Matters of Religion The other by shewing that the diversity of Opinions which is among the several Sects of Christians ought to be no hinderance to their Vnity in Communion Last of all I close with your Rational Account p. 291. And therefore those lesser Societies cannot in Justice make the necessary Conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Church i. e. those things which declare Men Christians ought to capacitate them for Communion with Christians Even an acknowledgment of the Scriptures as the indispensible Rule of Faith and Manners Which be pleased to note is something different from your late establish'd Rule Now would you fix here that those things which declare Men Christians shall suffice to capacitate them for Communion with you how many Mens Scruples would be removed and what better way can you think of to put a stop to Separation 7. Are you Impartial in charging all Nonconformist's Meetings with Separation tho very many of them ordinarily join with the Parochial Congregations and do not deny them â—o be true Churches as the old Separatists did p. 56. It is true say you in that Opinion they differ but in Separation they agree As in your Sermon p. 33. For do they not do the very same things and in the same manner that the others do how comes it then to be Separation in some and not in others Which I answered Rector of Sutton p. 49. thus What they do is not done upon the Separatists Principles and therefore not done in the same manner Yet you neither retract that Saying of yours nor refute my Answer And have not others as much reason to object against you that when you receive the Sacrament kâ—eeling you do the same thing that the Papists and Lutherans do I do not think it manifestly appears from the Pope's manner of receiving either sitting or a little leaning upon his Throne as you say p. 15. that the Papists are allowed to follow him herein How then comes that to be an Act of Worship in them when with you it is no Act of Worship but a â—eer indifferent Ceremony 8. Are you not very Partial in loading those that do not absolutely separate from you but only secundum quid as you do p. 54 55 56. Making their Practice that own you to be true Churches to be the more unjustifiable more inexcusable more unreasonable Separation Is it not a greater Schism to separate from you as no true Church than to do it only because you are faulty in imposing such Conditions as they cannot lawfully submit to Are they the greatest Separatists who hold Communion with you so far as they can I should think they are the greatest Separatists whose Separation is the most unjustifiable inexcusable and unreasonable As I had thought there was not so much reason to deny the Being of the Church of England while she retaineth the true Faith and hath the true Worship of God for substance as there may be to doubt of the lawfulness of Ceremonies and Modes of Worship invented and imposed without any clear Scripture-Warrant And suppose one dares not receive the Communion with you because he holdeth kneeling in that Act a participating with Idolaters and another is kept off because he suspects there may be some Superstition in it will you say the latter is the more unreasonable And do you not own those Lutheran Churches that have Exorcism with Baptism yet to be true Churches And if you was placed there must you therefore own and use Exorcism tho against your Judgment or be guilty of a more inexcusable unreasonable Separation from them than the Papists who deny them to be true Churches 9. Are you Impartial in allowing a different way of Worship to the Members of Forreign Churches here in England as p. 147 148. while you are against allowing the like Liberty to Natives which you deny not to Strangers Bishop Davenant Ad pacem Eccl. Adhort p. 116. Rat. 3. argues That none ought to deal more hardly with their Christian Brethren of other Churches than with their own Rom. 12. 5. Nam fraâ—â—rnitâ—s Christiana quae Intercedit inter membra Christi non variatur pro locorum aut nationum varietate You would have your own more hardly dealt with than those of forreign Churches Now what Equity is here Either you have Communion with those of Forreign Churches not withstanding their different way of Worship or you have not If you have no Communion with them then are you not Schismaticks from those Churches If you have Communion with them why may you not as lawfully have Communion with Nonconformists in their way of Worship Can you assign any just and sufficient Cause ex Natura rei why such a way of Worship should not be allowed 10. Do you deal Impartially while you complain p. 112. that no bounds are set to the Peoples Fancies of purer Administrations concerning which I am quite mistaken if I did not wish the Rector of Sutton had cautioned what he said and you on the other hand set no Bounds but by your excepting against what Mr. B. hath written of it would have People own and commit the care of their Souls to such Ministers as are in place be they never so profane insufficient or unsound Tho Mr. Cheyney Full Answer c. Introduct p. 7. grants That where God doth make a difference Men may Now God doth make a difference says he between the Ministry of the best and the worst between the Ministry of a John Baptist and a Pharisee a living Man and an Image P. 177. Say you And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches c. Where you suppose every Parochial Church in England to be a true Church and every Parochial Minister by consequence to be a true Minister unless you would argue fallaciously there Tho I had thought it possible to have found out some few at least whom you would have been ashamed to own I cannot but wonder at that you urge again and again p. 111. Were they not baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it p. 148. Our Business is with those who being baptized in this Church c. May not all those that were baptized in Presbyterian or Independent Congregations as well plead their Baptism for their continuing in that way of Worship which was in the
Argument and with this Advantage ad Hominem I know no Reason you have to be sorry for what you wrote formerly tending to Peace and Vnion as you may have cause to be sorry for what looks another way I should have thought the Method I took minding you how much you had said against such an establisht Rule as you would now bring us under might have tended to moderate rather than exasperate you What if you have since changed your Opinion Yet me-thinks you should not judge those former Principles of yours so sinful and dangerous that none are fit to be tolerated in the Church who hold to them How happy and glorious would the Church of England be had she no worse Teachers than Dr. Stilling fleet was when he maintained those Principles Or if you do account them so sinful and dangerous are you not the more obliged to disprove and refute them which you will find as hard a Task as it would have been to Grotius had he gone about the Confutation of what he had written de satisfactione Christi You go on Are you afraid of having too many Friends that you thus use those whom you once took to be such Me-thinks herein you appear very self-denying I am not careful to answer in this matter But is it so that we have quite lost you Will you no more stand our Friend Where is then the Kindness you spake of I remember Dr. Borrel silenced me when I had been silenced not two Months before But I could not have thought 20 Years ago that when we were driven into Corners Dr. St. would be for driving us out of our Corners too even he that could plead so well for us that we might enjoy publick Liberty Here I look back to that Preface p. 52. They would have had me preached for Alterations and Abatements and taking away Ceremonies and Subscriptions and then I might have been thought to have preached a very seasonable Sermon This indeed would have shewed that you was still our Friend and not ourâ— only but as good a Friend to this poor Church and Kingdom To plead for all Abatements that with the Honour of God and safety of true Religion might be granted to Dissenters for the uniting and strengthening of the Protestant Interest in such danger to be trodden down by the common Enemy would certainly be more seasonable than this work you are engaged in I would know whether that Speech of the Bishop of St. David's in the Convocation-House May 23 1604 was not seasonable Can it ever be unseasonable moving for the due Liberty of grave honest sound and conscientious Men such as the Church hath need of at all times and whose Labours might be very profitable And then whether pleading for Abatements at this day be not as seasonable I put a great difference said he between Quid liceat and Quid expediat And then speaking of those who were scrupulous only upon some Ceremonies and other Circumstances being otherwise learned studious grave and honest Men whose Labours have been both painful in the Church and profitable to their several Congregations he says though I do not justify their Doings yet surely their Service would be missed at such time as need shall require them and us to give the right hand of Fellowship one to another and to go arm in arm against the common Adversary that so there might be vis unita fortior If these our Brethâ—en aforesaid should be deprived of their places for the matters premised I think 〈…〉 Cause to bend our Wits to the uttermost extent of our Skill to provide 〈◊〉 cure of Souls for them where they may exercise their Talents Furthermore If these Men being divers hundreds as it is 〈…〉 should forsake their Charges as some do presuppose they will who I 〈◊〉 should succeed them Besides this for so much as in the Life-time of the late Arch-Bishop of Canterbury these things were not so extreamly urged but that many learned Preachers enjoyed their Liberty herein conditionally that they did not by Word or Deed openly disgrace or disturb the State established I would know a Reason why it should now be so generally and exceeding strictly called upon especially seeing that those Men are now the more necessary by so much as we see greater Increase of Papists to be now of late than were before To conclude I wish that if by Petition made to the King's Majesty there cannot be obtained a quite remove of the Premises which seem so grievous to divers not yet a Toleration for them which be of the more staid and temperate Carriage yet at the least there might be procured a Mitigation of the Penalty if they cannot be drawn by other Reasons to a Conformity with us Thus the Bishop of St. David's And if all the Bishops in England were of his Mind and would move for their Ministerial Liberty whose Service is needful at such a time as this especially whether would it not be very seasonable And if you had a Kindness and Pity for Dissenters is there not the same Reason for it still And is not this very Iuncture of Time as good an Occasion as ever you may have to shew it You say further to me Preface p. 72. But I cannot take you to be any of the wisest Men upon Earth And I should wonder if you did But you know what Diogenes said to one that told him many mocked him But said he I am not mocked I might well expect your Contempt when I see you contemning such whose Books I am not worthy to carry after them Yet it may be questioned here whether you take not your self to be wiser than the Wisdome of the whole Nation in Parliament comparing your Preface p. 81 c. with the declared Sense of that great and honorable Council Pref. p. 93. you say These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union So that if they were inclined to have gone further therein they appeared to you not very considerate or reasonable When you think it reasonable that upon longer time and farther Consideration those Divines of the Assembly who then opposed Separation should change their Opinions But where find you this in what I wrote Will you not allow one single Person but stupendae eruditionis Theologum as the Latine Apologist then called you pag. 118. Who happened to write about these matters when he was very young as you may say Mr. Ioseph Alleyn was very young when he was very ripe in twenty Years time of the most busie and thoughtful part of his Life to see Reason to alter his Judgment And yet you was as close a Student in that former part of your Life and as free from other Business from Diversions and Temptations as can be supposed you have been since But you should be allowed to alter your Iudgment and none can blame you if it be for the better Only in this case you should be so
put into the other Scale against Episâ—pacy and Ceremonies If the Law had said it shall be the loss of a Man's living to practise or preach for Episcopacy Common-Prayer-Book or Ceremonies these things even in their own Opinions would have been light as Vanity p. 193. Yet for what you say Preface p. 89. I am to suppose he was under a mistake For we must not think as you tell us there that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause or that you will give up the Cause of the Church so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it Now suppose ye were all outed of your Livings because ye could not or would not declare your Assent and Consent to the utter abolishing of such things I beseeâ—h you tell us sincerely what you would do in such a Case and would have others of your Brethren to do Do you judg it the Duty of Pastors to go on in passing a just Censure though against the Will of the Magistrate as I urged you with it Rector of Sutton p. 76. and yet would you wholly lay aside the Office of the Ministry and preach the Gospel no more rather than câ—oss his Will Would ye think your selves no more concerned to endeavour to keep up the Exercise of true Religion as you might when it was against the Will of the Magistrate If only such as the Non-conformists were in place you would be forced to confess that The true Religion was yet maintained and preached in publick Assemblies as pag. 136. And that there was an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between you and them and therefore according to your arguing pag. 132. you could not exercise though more privately when turn'd out of your Livings but such Faults as Sedition or Schism c. would be found in your Meetings Make the Case of Dissenters your own suppose your selves in the like Circumstances and I doubt not you will see cause to judg more favourably of them Do but allow them to do as you would do your selves in the like Case and I hope this Dispute will soon be at an End Here I shall take off all you say to that Question I proposed Rector of Sutton p. 26. And may it not be a Question whether they can properly be said to erect New Churches or to proceed to the forming of separate Congregations who were true Ministers and had their Congregations before others came into their places If they had done nothing N. B. worthy of Ejection or Exclusion from their Ministry whether they have not still a Right to exercise their Function c. You migh have done well to have joyned my Tenth Query pag. 3. with it and to have considered both together But what say you to this Vnreasonableness of Separation p. 137. There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation How Sir Are you in good earnest Not one word but might equally have served the Papists Why certainly you wrote in haste and forgot your self or else it is your Judgment that the Popish Bishops and Priests had done nothing worthy of Ejection or Exclusion from their Offices that they had still a Right to exercise their Functions And yet you argue it Rational Account pag. 379. that they were justly deprived How can these things stand together They had done nothing worthy of Ejection and yet were justly deprived You seem to have a great Conceit of this poor Shift we had it but a Page or two before pag. 135. The Papists then had the very same Plea that these Men have now So you must say and argue thus The Ministers of Antichrist and those such as were State-Incendiaries too might justly be cast out by Law ergo so may true Ministers of Christ though peaceable and loyal I grant the Antecedent but do you prove the Consequent But what have you further to say to me For indeed what you have yet said here is worse than nothing But in what follows the Reader may think you had a good mind to pay me home For the Law signifies nothing with them in any Case where themselves are concerned If Ministers be ejected without or against Law they who come into their place are no Usurpers and if they are cast out by Law they that succeed them are Usurpers so that the Law is always the least thing in their Consideration Now I thank you for this But is there here no sharp Reflection Do you not here bewray some undecent Passion which you so condemn others for Are not these things invidiously spoken Would you not here be raking into old Sores c. contrary to what you say in your Preface p. 44 45 But did you think to pinch me here who never was in a sequestred Living nor my predecessor before me but came in upon the choice of the People none opposing You thought to give us a dry Blow here never considering that it would reach as many if not more Conformists though it could not once touch him you seem especially to direct it to 〈◊〉 thus far of Ministers exercising though silenced if silenced for no 〈◊〉 Now II. To say something on the behalf of the People that hear them 1. They are under an Obligation to worship God in Society with other Christians with respect to God's Glory and their own Edification and Salvation They are charged not to forsake the assembling of themselves together And commanded to be swift to hear 2. The way is blockt up so as many cannot come to your Assemblies unless to use your own Phrase you would have them damn their Souls by sinning against their Consciences And if you judge it better for such to want the ordinary means of Salvation than to enjoy them by joyning with Non-conformists we must take you to be no more infallible herein than that Popish Council that decreed it righter to remain without visible Communion than to have it with those they call Hereticks 3. Some though they could dispense with the Liturgy and Ceremonies yet cannot satisfie themselves to take up under some Parish-Ministers who are apparently no way qualified for the work they take upon them I take the 9th Canon of the Council of Nice to be for nulling the Ordination of such as are scandalous or insufficient You are not for the People's choosing their Pastors but it is evident and undeniable that they are to refuse some Beware of false Prophets Beware of them i. e. fly from their Communion and have nothing to do with them as you say p. 215. They are to flee from Corrupt Teachers as from Wolves As the People forsook Photinus of whom Vincent Lyrinen adv haeres c. 16. p. 42. saith Nam quem antea quasi arietem Gregis sequebantur eundem deinceps veluti Lupum fugere caeperunt which you have also
Instance he gives there is convincing If a Souldier knew his Captain his Leader was for opening the Gates to the Enemy and yet followed such a Leader keeping Rank and Order so unseasonably he would shew himself a Traitor rather than a faithful Souldier The Disciples would seem to have been for Order there as you are when they were hindring Christ's Service Mar. 9. 38. Luk. 9. 49. Master we saw one casting out Devils in thy name and we forbad him because he followeth not us Now I heartily wish even for your own sake from that true and due Respect I owe to you that you would more impartially examine what you have been doing and reflect upon your self consider seriously whether you are not forbidding and condemning some as faithful Followers of Christ as your self even in their serving Christ and serving their Generation What are your Thoughts of such as Iospeh and Richard Alleyn with divers others that might be named who kept to their ministerial Work and as you say of Father Latimer never repented them of it If now they have that Well-come home Well done good and faithful Servants enter into the Ioy of your Lord. How far are they above all your Censures And me-thinks it deserves Men's serious Consideration whether they pray as they ought Thy Kingdom come or whether indeed they act not against their own Prayers who indeavour to hinder the preaching of the Gospel a means of enlarging and building up God's Kingdom And as you declare to the World p. 394. you are one that believes a day of Iudgment to come which I would not once question I beseech you Sir think well of what that well disposed Gentleman as you call him says I think gravely and piously Letter out of the Country pag. 38 39. Let us bring the Cause before our Supream and Final Iudg. And bethink your self whether of these two things he will be most likely to have regard unto the saving of Souls which He bought with his Blood or the preserving inviolate certain Humane Institutions and Rules confessed by the Devisers of them not to be necessary c. And so much of your first Conclusion and mine Your second Conclusion follows Preface p. 73. 2. Those are new Churches when Men erect distinct Societies for Worship under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from that Form they separate from Here 1. I cannot but look on you as very unfortunate unhappy in this Cause you have espoused How oft do you greatly expose your self that what you urge agianst your Brethren may justly be retorted on you So here how plain is it that you look but on one side which as I remember you suppose those that differ from you to be faulty in Had you not one Thought that if you owned such a Conclusion as this I should be likely to tell you you had spoiled your Cause Nihil quod nimis satis that by proving too much you would in effect prove nothing of that you aim at Should you not have considered what an Argument you here put into the Mouths of the Dissenters against the National Church of England against Diocesan Churches and against Parochial Churches too 1. Will not many be ready to tell you that it follows undeniably from this Conclusion of yours that you have made the National Church of England and the Diocesan Churches therein New unlawful Churches because under divers peculiar Officer governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church as from other Reformed Churches If those are new unlawful Schismatical Churches with you that are under distinct and peculiar Officers governing by Laws and Church-Rules different from the Apostolical truly Primitive Churches as I suppose it must come to that Primum in unoquoque genere est Regula Mensura reliquorum what work have you made here What an heavy Task and hard Province have you taken on you Can you ever prove that there are no Officers Laws Rules and Orders in your Church different from what were in the true Primitive Church Can you ever find all these Officers Arch-Bishops Lord-Bishops Deans Chancellors c down to Apparitors in the Primitive Church Will you undertake to find there all our Ecclesiastical Canons even Rules for kneeling in the Act of Receiving for signing with the Cross in Baptism for excluding the Parents and setting God-Fathers and God-Mothers in their stead with a Rule for peculiar appropriate Vestments c. To say here that though you have peculiar Officers Laws and Rules different from the Apostolical Primitive Church yet you do not own your selves to be a Church separate from that Primitive Church will not bring you off For this many Dissenters likewise say they separate not from you but hold Communion with you in all that is necessary and further have more Local Presential Communion with you than you can pretend to have with the Primitive Church Yet you will have their Assemblies separate Churches while they worship God by any other Rule than yours though their Worship be as agreeable to the Scripture-Rule And yet can you or any mortal Man prove that others may not be allowed to differ from you in such things wherein you differ from the Apostolical primitive Church Again it will as little help you to say That you speak of particular Congregations or Societies for Worship For 2. Do you not here make your Parochial Congregations also New Churches If the Primitive Church had not your Liturgy were not bound to the use of your Book of Common-Prayer then you cannot deny but you are under a somwhat different Rule And are there not some Parishes that have only Deacons to officiate And may I not be bold to tell you that you can never prove your Deacons the same with those in the Churches erected by the Apostles According to P. Paul Sarpi of matters Benefic N. 27. Deacons were Ministers of temporal things You your self say p. 311. It was no properly Church-power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock Then are not Deacons that are allowed to preach and baptize c. different Officers By this time I hope you will be sensible what a Wound you have given to the Cause you take upon you to defend by this Conclusion which is my first Note upon it 2. At the first view and reading of this your second Conclusion I was willing to hope that then you would not condemn such Assemblies as Mr. B's who leave the ruling Work to you and are glad if they be permitted to preach and hear God's Word and do not separate from you but joyn with you even in Sacraments as well as other parts of God's Worship But looking farther into your Book I see my Mistake For you say pag. 98. as was cited before No Man denies that more places for Worship are desirable and would be very useful where c. But is it possible that Mr. B. should think the Case alike where
Sutton p. 27. n. 9. You were put in mind of it to inquire whether there be not some in publick Place not very well satisfied with what they have done who come not up to your Church-Rules As some read not all the Common-Prâ—yer they are enjoyned to read and yet had declared their Assâ—nt and Consent to the use at least as you would have it Some use not the Surplice some omit the Cross in Baptism some dare not put away from the Sacrament any meerly for not kneeling And yet you charge not such with Schism pag. 148. n. 5. yet have they different Rules or at least they differ from your Rules as well as Non-conformists And I know not whether you may not be understood to allow Men to go from their Parish Church pag. 145. n. 1. provided they elsewhere joyn with your Churches as Members of them What then is the parting Point from the Communion of your Church or the trying Point of Conformity without which a New Church is erected Here I offer this Note upon what you say farther pag. 148. n. 5. That many whom you condemn though not satisfied with such and such Orders of the Church yet continue in all Acts of Communion with your Church or in all that you will call parts of Worship and draw not others from it upon any meer Pretence no not at all though they dare not but joyn at other times with Non-conformists in that which they are well assured is as truly God's Worship and if they say in some Respects more pure you have not yet disproved it And therefore you should make good your word there and not charge such with Schism Or if you should say Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules is necessary that if Men differ never so little from those Rules it is to erect new Churches what woful rending work would this make By a Parity of Reason may not other foreign Churches be denied to have Communion with the Church of England How many that could not submit to these Laws and Rules without receding from their own publick Confessions Could the French and Belgick Churches assent to the Ius divinum of Episcopacy could they own it as evident to all Men diligently reading the holy Scriptures to be of Apostolical Institution And would not any one that reads the Declaration of the Faith and Ceremonies of the Psaltzgraves Churches printed at London A. D. 1637 take them to have been averse from such Conformity as the Church of England stands upon You glory in the good Opinion of the Reformed Churches and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church and their owning Communion with our Church pag. 96 97. And you make nothing of what hath been returned by way of Answer to Dr. D. Bonasus Vapulans is but a little Creature I confess to look on yet some that have read it do not look on it as nothing But if an owning of the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy and Re-ordination c. be made the Terms of their Communion with our Church how many Protestant Divines abroad that would renonuce Communion with us rather than be pleased with it upon such Terms And further if Conformity in all things to your Church-Rules be necessary c. How many Parochial Ministers and Congregations as was noted before must be denied to be in Communion with the Church of England whom for the same Reason you must call new erected Churches For as one says alluding to that They who themselves were circumcised kept not the Law They who have assented and consented observe not the Orders and Rules to which they have given their Assent c. And yet as you have it from another The Priests in the Temple break the Law and are blameless Then must you not either acquit many Dissenters here or condemn many Conformists You see how fain I would have Protestant Dissenters acknowledged still to have Communion with the Church of England if it might be the difference being not in such things as belong to it as a Church If you took away those things which are as the Wall of Partition betwixt you and them your Churches would be as sound and entire without them And if you make them Sâ—hismaticks for differing from you in such things while they agree with you in all things necessary whether will you not make your selves or other Churches you would be ashamed to disown Schismaticks who differ from you in as great Matters as such Dissenters do Here let me press you a little further Keep to your own Rule Preface p. 46. As far as the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism reach Then it follows if the Obligation to preserve the Church's Peace extends so far as to the Rulers and Governours of the Church there may be as much Schism in their setting up unnecessary Rules which others cannot submit to as in Mens varying from such Rules P. 209. You argue From the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church And now say you I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men. Had you put the Matter home indifferently and impartially to the Consciences of Men on both sides that is both of Imposers and Dissenters many could not but have thought in their Consciences you was to be commended for it But then had you not pleaded as much for Dissenters as here you plead against them I must grant they ought for the Peace and Vnity of the Church to yield as far as they can without sinning against God and their own Souls and should not Imposers do the like Were this one Rule agreed on what Peace and Unity would soon follow What Chillingworth p. 283. § 71. says of Protestants That they grant their Communion to all who hold with them not all things but things necessary that is such as are in Scripture plainly delivered Make this good of the Church of England and by my consent all we who have unwillingly appeared against you will readily and joyfully give you our publick Thanks What you say further p. 209. may thus be handed back again to you If there be no sufficient Reason to justify such Rules and Orders if they are a Violation of the Vnity of the Church you there make it a Sin as much as murder is and as plainly forbidden And therefore I do earnestly desire as you p. 213. all Parties concerned as they love their own Souls and as they would avoid the Guilt of so great a Sin impartially and without prejudice to consider that Passage of Irenaeus with you p. 212. That Christ will come to judg those who make Schisms in the Church and rather regard their own Advantage than the Church's Vnity c. And if any indifferent Men had the matter put to them to decide who were more likely to regard their own Advantage whether some of you or such as Mr.
one is bound to submit to the Determination of such what ever his private Judgment be 1. As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God 2. And in matters of meer Order and Decency 3. And wholly as to the Form of Government This I think you cannot deny to be the true Analysis of your third Conclusion How pertinent this your Resolution is to the case of Dissenters and how material to give them Satisfaction will appear by examining the several Parts But first it is worth nothing that you speak only of the Determination of the lawful Governours of the Church Implying that Men are not bound to submit to the Determination of such as may be proved Vsurpers such as are not lawful Governours of the Church Then so far you and they may be agreed that if the Pope should set up a Patriarch c. in England Men were not bound to submit to their Determination till such could be proved lawful Governours of the Church And then whether you have fully answered your Gentleman p. 305. and others and proved that Christ hath invested with Power to make such Decrees and Determinations as lawful Governours of the Church those who neverwere chosen or approved by the People is another Question But then where lawful Governours of the Church determine you tell us 1. Every one is bound to submit to their Determination As to things in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches left undetermin'd by the Law of God Here 1. You should have told us whether by the Primitive Churches you meant the primo-primitive Churches or only such Ancient Churches as those of the fourth or fifth Age. One would guess that these latter are your Primitive Churches Now in my Thoughts King Iames was quite beyond the Cardinal and got the upper Ground In Defence of the Right of Kings p. 398. where the Cardinal arguing that a Doctrine believed and practised in the Church in the continual Current of the last Eleven Hundred Years was not to be condemned His Majesty replied In these VVords he maketh a secret Confession that in the first five hundred Years the same Doctrine was neither apprehended by Faith nor approved by Practice VVherein to my understanding the Lord Cardinal voluntarily giveth over the Suit for the Church in the time of the Apostles their Disciples was no more ignorant what Authority the Church is to challenge than at any time since in any succeeding Age in which as Pride hath still flowed to the heighth of a full Sea so Purity of Religion and Manners hath kept for the most part at a low Water-mark You should have told us also what Reformed Churches you meant whether all or only some of them And if but some whether those that only took the Scripture as their Rule in reforming or those that took in the Example and Practice of some of those Ancient Churches together with it 2. What are those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermin'd by the Law of God besides matters of meer Order and Decency and what relates to Form of Government 3. Can this be a safe and sure Rule When you grant the Church may err and general Councils may err may they not then judg some things left undetermin'd by the Word that are not sâ— left Chillingworth grants there may be just and necâ—ssary Cause to depart from some Opinions and Practices of the Cathâ—lick Church p. 298. And you say partly the same in your Rational Account pag. 331 332. Those Errors in practice in the Judgment of the Church may be such things as are left undetermined by the Word when yet others are not bound to submit to them You tell us Rational Account p. 627. The matter to be enquired here is what Liberty of Prescription is allowed by vertue of the Law of Christ for since he hath made Laws to govern his Church by it is most senslâ—ss pleading Prescription till you have particularly examined how far such Prescription is allowed by him So then it is not enough to say in the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches such things are left undetermined by God's Law and the Church hath Power to determine them But Men are to examine whether such Liberty be allowed by Christ. And as you go on p. 628. It may be you will tell me that in this Case Prescription interprets Law and that the Churches Possession argues it was the Will of Christ. But still the Proof lies upon your side since you run your self into new Briars for you must prove that there is no way to interpret this Law but by the Practice here I must say by the Iudgment of the Church and which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of all that the Church cannot come into the Possession of any thing but what was originally given her by the Legislator He that undertakes to prove it impossible that the Church should claim by an undue Title must prove it impossible that the Church should ever be deceived 4. Is this a plain or rather is it not an Impossible Rule If every one be bound to submit to the Determination of those things that in the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches are left undetermined by the Word then every one should be bound to know the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches as to those things We should think it well if Men would be perswaded to search the Scriptures and to submit to what God hath revealed and made known there to be their Duty but according to what you have here laid down this should not be sufficient but every one is also bound to search the Monuments of Antiquity to turn over the Antient Fathers and Councils and so likewise to get a View of the whole Body of latter Confessions that may inform him of the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches And is not this to bind heavy Burthens upon Men's Shoulders and to make more Sins than are found to be so in God's Law Or will you say that Men are bound to an Implicite Faith here that what you assert to have been the Judgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches they must believe without more adoe Or if you will not say they are bound to such an Implicite Faith in your Word will you allow them to suspend the Act of Submission to the Determination of Church-Governours till such time as they can be satisfied that such Determination is agreeable to the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches Will you give them time till they can find Re-ordination in the like Case reading of Apocrypha in the room of God's Word c. to have been approved and practised in the Primitive and Reformed Churches 5. Is this a golden rather is it not a leaden Rule May it not be turned contrary ways Was the Primitive Church for kneeling in the Act of receiving Were
not the Psaltzgraves Churches to be reckoned among the reformed Churches And were they for our English Ceremonies Do not the Lutheran Churches hold some things lawful and indifferent which in the Judgment of the Church of England are unwarrantable As things indifferent and lawful in the Judgment of the Church of England are not so in the Judgment of some other reformed Churches I do profess plainly says Chillingworth p. 376. that I cannot find any rest for the Sole of my Foot but upon this Rock only the Bible I see plainly and with mine own Eyes that there are Popes against Popes Councils against Councils some Fathers against others the same Fathers against themselves a consent of Fathers of one Age against a consent of Fathers of another Age the Church of one Age against the Church of another Age. 6. Is this Rule of the Iudgment of the Primitive and Reformed Churches indeed applicable to your established Rule Do you find the one agreeable to the other Were the Primitive Churches for imposing the same Liturgy the same Rites and Ceremonies which they yet held undetermined by God's Word Was it their Judgment that each Nation or Province should be tied up to a strict Vniformity in such things Do you find this within the first five hundred years Can you gainsay those Words of yours cited Rector of Sutton p. 19. which I think are pertinent and material here We see the Primitive Christians did not make so much of any Uniformity in Rites and Ceremonies nay I sâ—arce think any Churches in the Primitive times can be produced that did exactly in all things observe the same Customs which might be an Argument of Moderation in all as to these things but especially in pretended admirers of the Primitive Church And yet would you have every one bound to submit to the determination of Church-Governors in such Matters whatever his private Iudgment be concerning them As Eusebius notes from Irenaeus l. 5. c. 26. English c. 23. the Primitive Christians could differ in such Matters and yet live in Peace And 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 So Anicetas and Polycarpus could differ in such Matters and yet communicate one with another The Primitive Christians retained câ—ntrary Observations and yet as Irenaeus said held fast the bond of Love and Vnity Can you ever prove that the Primitive Church or the best reformed Churches have assumed a Power of suspending Ministers from their Office and of debarring Christians from Communion for such Matters Here comes to my Mind that which you say Vnreas of Separat p. 14. that our Reformers preceeded more out of râ—verence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery Yet with King Iames Defence of the right of Kings p. 47c the Christian Religion reformed is as to say purged and cleansed of all Popish Dregs And p. 17. Altho they made the Scripture the only Rule of Faith and rejected all things repugnant thereto yet they designed not to make a Transformation of a Church but a Reformation of it by reducing it as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors c. Agreeable to Chillingworth p. 287. â— 82. But whether you took not the hint of distinguishing the Transformation of a Church from the Reformation of it from Arch-Bishop Whitgift I cannot tell However T. C. latter part of his second Reply p. 172. could not discern it to have any Solidity but called it a single solid Argument seeing Transforming may be in part as well as Reforming And you have not improved it at all But what a strange Assertion is that of yours p. 96. That there are in effect no new Terms of Communion with this Church but the same wich our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyrdom for in Queen Mary's Days And will you stand to this that they died Mâ—rtyrs for Ceremonies and for such Impositions as have thrust out so many Ministers that are most ready to subscribe to the same Truth for which indeed they laid down their Lives I had thought that I. Rogers the Proto-Martyr in that Persecution had been a Non-conformist As there were other Nonconformists also that suffered And can you make the World believe that they suffered for Conformity And did not the Martyrs in Queen Mary's Days suffer in one and the same Cause whether Conformists or Non-conformists Indeed they agreed well in Red in Blood and Flames who before had differed in Black and White But as you will have it p. 2. Our Church stands on the same Grounds c. And p. 4. I would only know if those Terms of Communion which were imposed by the Martyrs and other Reformers and which are only continued by us c. I say you would persuade us that you are upon the same Grounds with our first Reformers who were for Reforming according to the Scripture rejecting all things repugnant thereto only they would have the Church reduced as near as they could to that state it was in under the first Christian Emperors p. 17. Now to make this good it lieth on you to prove from Catholick written Tradition that the present established Rule was the Rule for Admission of Ministers into their Function and other Church-Members into Communion observed in those Antient Churches or one as near as could be to it and further to make it good that it is not at all repugnant to the Scripture-Rule Or if you cannot do this you must then grant that you are gone off from the Rule of our first Reformers that is the Scripture and those Primitive Churches and that the Terms of Communion are not indeed the same Propter externos ritus disciplinae homines pios ferire neque Domini est voluntas neque purioris Ecclesiae mâ—s 7. Would not such a Rule be point-blank contrary to Scripture-Rule If never so many Councils if all the Churches upon Earth determined that they had such Power that they could cut off both Ministers and Members of the Church for Matters left undetermined by God's Law we could not submit to such Determination while we believe the Scripture which tells us so plainly that they have no Power for Destruction but for Edification I subscribe to that of Panormitan Magis Laico esse credendum si ex scripturis loquatur quam Papae si absque verbo Dei agat Is not the Scripture-Rule plain here 1 Pet. 5. 3. that the Governours of the Church must not Lord it over Godâ—s Heritage And tho the Laity or common Christian People are directly and properly intended there yet no doubt by just and undeniable Consequence it will as well follow that they are not to Lord it over the Clergy And when Peter Martyr sets down the just causes of separation from Rome he gives this for one good Reason Because they usurp more Power than the Apâ—stle Paul accounted belonging to him 2 Cor 1. Not as if we had Dominion over your Faith Quibus verbis testatur fidem nâ—mini subjectam
made parts of Divine Worship you will excuse those that cannot submit to them unlâ—ss they could be proved of Divine Institution If they are things not 〈◊〉 by the Word according to what you have p. 116. they should not be 〈◊〉 they are not bound to use them No Church-Governours upon Faith havâ— suâ—h a Power to bind men to things not 〈◊〉 by the Word If their 〈◊〉 enjoin what Christ's Laws forbid as the making of any nâ—w part of Worship they are ipso facto null and void King Iamâ—s 〈…〉 Right of Kings p. 428. It is moreover granted If a King sâ—all command any thing dirâ—ctly contrary to God's Word and tending to the 〈◊〉 of the Church that Cleries in this Case ought not only to dispence with Subjects for thâ—ir Obedience but also expresly to forbid their Obedience For it is alwayes better to obey God than Man And I hope you would not set up the Power of any Church-Governour above the King 's here and abâ—ve Christâ—â— And what Episcopius saith in defence of Severed Meetings sometimes against the will of the Magistrate Vol. 1. Par. 2. p. 56. col 2. may be appliâ—d hâ—re to Non-submission in such case as is spoken of to the Determination of Church-Governous Deirectatio autem illa Obedienâ—iae 〈◊〉 est in Obedientia nedum resiâ—tentia sed tantum Supremi Iuris 〈◊〉 quâ—d Magistratus sibi 〈◊〉 adrogat out userpat debita Recognitio It should not be called Non-submission to our Governours but rather a due Recogniâ—â—â—on of the Soveraign Right and Authority of our highest Lord. For haste I have here thrown things on heaps A few words now to the third part of your last Conclusion 3. You say Wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound to submit to such Determination Here I offer to your Consideration what follows 1. Whether they that could submit to Episcopacy as to their Practice that is live peaceably under it and obey Governours in Licitis Honestis so far as God's Law allows should be urged further to submit their Iudgment to the Divine or Apostolical Right of Episcopacy when determined by Governours whatever their private Iudgment may be Could Bishop Cranmer have declared his Assent to such Determination whose Judgment was That the Bishops and Priests were not two things but both one Office in the beginning of Christ's Religion as you cite his MS. Irenic p. 392. could such a Man as Dr. Holland and I need not tell you what he was who called Dr Laud a Schismatick for asserting the Divine Right of Episcopacy saying It was to make a Division betwixt the English and other Reformed Churches Or could Lud. Capellus have submitted to such Determination That it is evident to every one diligently reading holy Scripture c. who in effect says the contrary Thes. Salmur p. 8. § 33. Neque verò praescripto ullo divino desinitum esse putamus c. And if the like was determined of Arch-Bishops as of Bishops I am in some doubt from what I meet with in your Rational Account whether you could submit to such Determination For there pag. 298. You speak of it as a known and received Truth in the Ancient Church That the Catholick Church was a Whole consisting of Homogeneal Parts without any such Subordination or Dependance Here I would be satisfied how you would expound Homogeneal Parts and so you seem to expound them p. 300. Since the Care and Government of the Church by these Words of Cyprian Episcopatus unus appears to be equally committed to all the Bishops of the Catholick Church But then should not all that have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them be supposed to be Bishops and no one Bishop above another otherwise how is the Care and Government of the Church equally committed to them how is there Episcopatus unus And how doth the Church consist of Homogeneal Parts And thus will it not follow that no Constitution higher than that of such Bishops as have the Care and Government of the Church committed to them which you here suppose to be with a Parity should be made the Center of Ecelesiastical Communion And yet more fully p. 302. When S. Cyprian saith Episcopatus unus est cujus à singulis in solidum Pars tenetur de Vnit. Eccles. p. 208. That every Part belonging to each Bishop was held in solidum he therein imports that full Right and Power which every Bishop hath over his Charge and in this Speech he compares the Government of the Church to an Estate held by several Free-holders in which every one hath a full Right to that Share which belongs to him Whereas according to your Principles the Government of the Church is like a Manâ—or or Lordship in which the several Inhabitants hold at the best but by Copy from the Lord. Now it would be considered whether in these Words you have not given Metropolitan Churches a shake if not Diocesan Churches too 2. Whether you could submit and declare your Assent if lawfull Governours should determine that Bishops were no Superiour Order of Divine or Apostolical Institution and should require your Assent Would you then disown and discard such whom you here maintain to be the Apostles Successours For what you say Vnreasonableness of Separation Preface p. 89. we may not think you would ever be afraid or ashamed to own them For there you tell us The Friends of the Church of England will not be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause They must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it that is for Union or the Churches Peace so as to condemn its Constitution c. Then you cannot say that wholly as to the Form of Government every one is bound for the Churches Peace to submit to the Determination of Governours whatever his private Judgment be Here I have put a Case wherein you could not submit 3. What if the whole Work of Government belonging to the Pastor's Office was quite taken out of their hand that they were made meer Curats of the Bishop and such Copy-holders as must hold nothing but at the Will of their Lord Would you have them bound to acquiesce in the publick Decision without doing any thing towards a Reformation Should they betrary the Churches Interest for the Churches Peace May they not endeavour any Alteration not so much as by complaining to Governours of such Exorbitances of Power and by humble Petition for Redress 4. Is every one bound to submit wholly as to the Form of Government to Governours Determination Then what if our Civil Governours and the Ecclesiastical should differ in their Iudgments and Determinations I make no question but you have one time or other met with that of Sir Francis Knolles to my Lord Treasurer Sir William Cecil Moreover whereas your Lordship said unto me that the Bishops have forsaken their claim of Superiority over their Inferiour Brethren lately to be by God's
is plain that there is real need of more Ministers than are in place And I desired to know whether it was better that Men shoulâ— be untaught and so pâ—rish for lack of Knowledgâ— than taught by such as the Non-conformists Whether the Souls of Men are of no more value than our Ceremonies But as yet I have no Answer from you that may satisfy What you further say to me p. 137. I have fully answered before Again pag. 144. You cite a few Words of mine wich I know to be true of some and pitty them And though it is said we would certainly give but bad Quarter to others yet I hope if I had been all this time in placâ— for me they should have had their Liberty to hear those they were 〈◊〉 â—â—tisfied with and could profit more by Pag. 168 169. You contradict not what I said Rector of Sutton p. 15 16. Onl◠〈…〉 little use of it as seem'd to serve your purpose there while yet 〈◊〉 â—â—ands good against you Pag. 196. You do not fully set down my meaning though it was plain enough Rector of Sâ—tton p. 42. Neither do you take any notice of what you had said your self Irenic p. 65. though you there meet with it again Wherefore I wonder how you could overlook it If that Council at Gangrae had enjoyned the religious use of a peculiar habit appropriate to the Service of God and others had refused to submit to it I question then whether the Council would not have been the Schismaticks As whether any without being guilty of making a Schism can exclude and silence Ministers for wearing Beards or for not obeying such a trifling command as that was Mr. B Church-History p. 360 361. § 55. But upon that matter of the Council's condemning the followers of Eust. Sebastenus I still query whether you ought not to make a difference betwixt such as separated meerly upon pretence of Purity while they were indeed defiled with gross Errors both in Opinion and Practice as I there shewed and such as are necessitated to withdraw and cannot otherwise keep their Consciences pure This you should consider As Chillingworth says p. 282. § 71. A Murderer can cry Not Guilty as well as an innocent Person but not so truly nor so justly And P. Martyr Loc. Com. cl 4. l. 6. p. 894. Si quaedam partes ab eo toto se dividant quod â—itiari infici nolint discessio erit laudabilis The seventh and last place where you take notice of me is p. 307. And there I am brought in as concluding with and for you about your National Church But if we are agreed herein why then do you call that which I say of it Rector of Sutton p. 20 21. A weak Assault as you do implicitly p. 303. § 23. Assaulting tho never so weakly is not agreeing but quite different or rather contrary But there I say 1. That we will thank you if you can prove the National Church of England as it is now established to subsist by a Divine Law and positive Institution of Christ. 2. I put it to the question whether it be not Schismatical for any National Church to make such Terms of Agreement and Communoon as are â—ot agreeable to that same Rule by which all Christians ought to walk And that your Terms are such is easy to prove from your own Words there recited And whether they that so far separate from such a dividing National Church tho they comply not with its established Rule may not yet be found walking by the same Rule in the true sence of your Text Yet these things you thought fit to pass by and would notwithstanding persuade your Readers that had rather take your Word than be at any pains to compare things together that we are agreed and this point is thought fit to be given up And yet I do not deny but Christians of whatsoever Society whether a less or greater should be for uniting so far as they can to preserve and strengthen the Society and to promote true Religion and Christianity So I agree with you in what you say p. 292. The best way of the Churches Preservation is by an Union of the Members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it And doubtless this is a good and necessary Proviso for that which overthrows the ends of Vnion is a wicked Conspiracy against Christ and his Church rather than true Christian Vnity or Concord But then it should be considered if a National Church sets down such Terms of Union as have no tendency to promote the common cause of Religion and true Interest of Christianity such terms as are sure to cause Dissention as evidently tend to divide break and shatter the Society whether the Churches Preservation be therein truly consulted or any way likely to be thereby secured And whether as Mr. Corbet says Kingdom of God c. p. 155. The Constitution of the Church should not be set as much as may be for the incompâ—ssing of all true Christians which indeed makes for its most fixed and ample state And whether the taking of a narrower compass be not a fundamental Error in its Policy and will not always hinder its stability and increase Thus I think I have spoken to all the Passages in your Book wherein I am properly concerned Yet am I not at an end of my Task In your Preface you direct me to three Letters you have subjoined to your Treatise Preface p. 76. You say There is one thing more which this Author takes notice of Rector of Sutton p. 6. If we are condemned by oothers abroad we may thank our Friends at home who have misrepresented us to the World while we have not been allowed to plead for our selves Therefore to give satisfaction as to the Judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living I have subjoyned to the following Treatise some late Letters of theirs c. Now whether you have put these Letters in print with the consent of those that wrote them or by some Law or Priviledg peculiar to your self I know not nor shall I trouble my self to enquire And whether they were procured on purpose to grace and set off this Book of yours as by their Date they appear to have come lately as you say the first written in September 80. The second in October The third in November this however is not very material But it is likely some may think your Five Answerers confronted and confounded with the Authority of these three Letters of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now living Yet to tell you my Thoughts I could not but think thus with my self That if we had no more cause to fear a French-Army confuting us by Club-Law than that any eminent French Protestant Divines would condemn us if they thorowly examined and knew our Cause we were so far safe enough Now as to these Letters
it concerns not me to descant on the whole but especially to enquire and observe whether it be not as I said Or as Calvin wrote to Dr. Cox and his Brethren Ep. 165. as you have it not far from the beginning of your Book p. 12. That the state of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him write with greater sharâ—â—â—ess than otherwise he would have done I think we shall see it plain That either they had not the true state of our Case laid before them or if they had then they wrote very much besides it I suppose their Letters here faithfully translated The First Letter is from Monsieur Le Moyne THo I find a Letter of the same Persons formerly published wherein it is said he thought himself abused sundry Passages in his Letter moderating and regulating the Episcopal Power being left out Bâ—â—as Vapul p. 80 81. Yet I must not suppose any such thing here unless I could prove it But from what is here published P. 404. I could not have persuaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a Man could not be of her Communion without hazarding his own Salvation It is a very strange thing to see them come to that Extream as to believe that a Man cannot be saved in the Church of England And p. 408. Is it not horrible Impudence to excommunicate her without Mercy for them to imagine that they are the only Men in England that hold the Truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held From hence is it not plain now that either he understood not the matter of difference betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists or else did here forget it Had M. Le Moyne consulted and perused your Sermon which possibly was the Occasion of those Writings that M. de L' Angle seems to condemn unseen p. 420 423. had he only read what you say p. 21. I will not make the Difference wider than it is 1. They unanimously confess they find no Fault with the Doctrine of our Church and can freely subscribe to all the Doctrinal Articles Well then the case is vastly different as to their Separation from us and our Separation from the Church of Rome 2. They generally yield That our Parochial Churches are true Churches They do not deny That we have all the Essentials of true Churches true Doctrine true Sacraments 3. Many of them declare that they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful Or had he seen what you write here p. 95. how all your Answerers agree with you in the Doctrine of the Church of England and as Dr. Owen says we are firmly united with you in Confession of the same Faith had these things been in his Eye surely he could not have written at this Rate as if we thought we were the only Men in England that held the Truths necessary to Salvation So I leave you your self to judg whether M. Le Moyne goes not upon a great Mistake Sure I am that either he or you have greatly misrepresented us as every ordinary Capacity by comparing what I have here set down may readily discern If what he says of us here be true what you say must needs be false Now I do the more willingly appeal to your Iudgment here touching these things whereof we are accused because I know you are expert in the Questions that are amongst us Say then Whether ever any such Controversie arose betwixt the Conformists and Non-conformists Let me hear of one Non-conformist that ever asserted That a Man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England or that no Conformist could be saved Yet this learned Professor would have them all to be such As is too plain from that very odious Parallel which he says p. 408. One might make betwixt them and the Donatists Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an Opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved As for his comparing them with Popâ— Victor some will smile at it as more fitly agreeing to others that are for excomunicating Christians for meer Non-conformity in matters of Ceremonies And no better will the Comparison hold betwixt them and the Audeans or Anthropomorphites as whosoever reads what Antiquity says of them may perceive If they were against rich Bishops that is not to the Point If our Bishops would be content with their Riches and quit their claim of Divine Right till it can be proved or not require our Acknowledgment of it before we believe it nor impose such things on us as we are sure and can prove from what they wrote the Apostles would never have imposed whose Successors they pretend to be then I doubt not we could accord with them So that here also he shoots wide And thus alas by overdoing he hath hitherto done just nothing for you I know Sir that you to whose Iudgment I here appeal must needs acquit us from that Vncharitableness we are here charged with Or we are not the Men he speaks of we are not arrived to that horrible Impudence to excommunicate all of your Communion without Mercy We are not like the Donatists or those of the Roman Communion not as here we are represented And so if Dr. Potter's word â—ay be taken we are to be cleared and acquitted from the charge of Schisâ—â— As he says Answer to Charity mistaken Sect. 3. p. 75. printed at Oxford 1633. This clears us from the Imputation of Schism whose Property it is witness the Donatists and Lucifâ—rians to cut off from the Body of Christ and the hope of Salvation the Church from which it separates Can you find any such Separatists amongst those who yâ—t remain firmly united to you in the Confession of the same Faith We differ only as I said Rector of Sutton p. 31. as to certain external accidental Forms Modes and Rites which the Church of England cannot say are necessary and appear to us as things at least to be suspected and yet they are obtruded and imposed with as much Rigor and Strictness as if they were most highly necessary We doubt not yet but there are sober and truly pious Conformists whose Consciences do not scruple the Lawfulness of these things But here I would say as Dr. Potter ibid p. 76. To him who in simplicity of heart believes them to be lawful and pracfiseth them and withal feareth God and worketh Righteousness to him they shall prove Venial Such a one shall by the Mercy of God either be delivered from them or saved with them But he that against Faith and Conscience shall go along with the Stream to profess and practise them because they are but little Onâ—s his Case is dangerous and witout Repentance desperate So though the learned Professor compares the present Dissenters because he knows them not with the Donatists I may here borrow an Expression of
I cannot see what can hinder a mutual good Agreement Pag. 410. And seeing the good of the â—tare and Church depends absolutely upon the Union of the People in the Point of Religion one cannot there press an universal Union too much But it ought to be procured by good means An Vnion in Religion may be without Vniformity in Ceremonies You will not own it that you place Religion in these that they are any parts of Religion But the pressing of such unnecessary doubtful things upon Men about which many are and ever will be dissatisfied seems no good nor probable means to procure an Vniversal Vnion That Prudence and Charity which this Professor afterwards commends as necessary in this Work would in my simple Judgment direct to other Means and Methods Notes upon the Second Letter from Monsieur de L' Angle ADD P. 420. I have not met with such Writings said to be lately published to make Men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Or if I have seen any such they are quite out of my Mind As to the former of these do but allow them to distinguish as you do in your Rational Account and they will say They have communion with the Church of England so far as it is a Church and very many of them have ordinary Communion in the self-same Worship so far as it is God's Worship And what is redundant it is not necessary that they should have Communion in It is one thing to say Communion with the Church of England is simply unlawful unlawful in it self and so unto all Men and another to say that Communion in the Liturgies or Ceremonies is unlawful to them who cannot yet be satisfied that they are lawful But we are further supposed to believe that Communion with the Church of England is intolerable in what follows that the Ministers cannot permit it to private Persons without sinning Here let every one so far as they are called to it speak for themselves For my part I have never made it any of my Work God and Men are Witnesses to warn others to take heed how they had Communion with the Church of England I have never told any living Soul that I should sin if I did not forbid their joyning with Parochial Congregations Rather it should be my Prayer I am sure it is my Hearts desire that sober Conformists and Non-conformists might once come to joyn each with other notwithstanding their lesser Differences But it seems it is not permitted to you to have Communion with such at Dr. O. and Mr. B. tho you may have Communion with others from whom you differ in greater Matters both as to your Judgments and Practices too while they do but conform then is there not some strange secret Virtue or Inchantment in this Chain of Conformity It can congregate the heterogeneous while it separates those who are more homogeneous But that this is not the Doctrine of the Non-conformists that they cannot permit private Persons to have Communion with you without sinning I am very apt to conclude because M. Le Moyne went to several of their private Assemblies while he was at London and could never hear any such thing from any of them Otherwise sure he that could remember the citing of Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times in one Sermon and tell us of it five years after tho I doubt his being so â—â—sy in casting up such Accounts might be the cause he waâ— not at all edified by the Sermon would not have failed to take notice of such a thing as that being more pertinent and material And for the same Reason with others I cannot believe what follows hâ—â—e p. 423. That The Bugbâ—ar Words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist are continually beaten into the Peoples Ears If so M. Le Moyne had been as likely as any Person to have catched at them and then had we heard of them again But further some of us have the very same to say that this Learned Person says P. 420 421. That In frequenting your Assemblies and preaching too in â—ongregations that are under the Jurisdiction of the Church of England when we could enjoy the Priviledg which indeed â—â—th been very rarely we have thus also shewn that we do not believe her 〈◊〉 to be unlawful Add P. 422. Schism is the most formidâ—ble â—vil thaâ— can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this 〈◊〉 â—Charity obliges all good Men to bear with then Brethâ—◠〈…〉 much less â—olerable than those of which the dispute is 〈…〉 the Eyes of those that have the most aversion fro◠〈◊〉 I thought it would appear that these â—minent learned Men did not rightly and fully understand our case So the former speaks as if we did excommunicate the Church of England without Mercy Whâ—â— alas we are rather under her Excommunication And this learneâ— Person speaks as if we had not so much Christian Charity as to bear with our Brethren in the use of a few Ceremonies but that is not the thing in Question Many of us at least could and do bear with youâ— Conformity and joyn with you notwithstanding But will it not follow from his own Words That Christian Charity obliges you to bear with ouâ— Non-conformity yet you will not bear with us I hope you would be counted good Men. Now he says Christian Charity obliges all good Men to bear with their Prethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the disâ—â—â—â— is The Apostle gives Timothy a very solemn Charge then are not Bishops concerned in it if Timothy was a Bishop 1 Tim. 5. 21. I charge thee before God and the Lord Iesus Christ and the Elect Angels that thou observe these things without preferring one before another doing nothing by Partiality And one of these things he was to observe we find v. 17. Let the Elders that rule well be counted worthy of double Honour especially they who labour in the Word and Doctrine Yet how many that have been â—alled to the work of the Ministry how many of your Brethren that would gladly labour in the work they have been called unto and you have been doing them what dishonour you can loading them with the charge of Schism and unreasonable Separation while you can bear with things much less tolerablâ— in others Is this your Christian Charity Or doing nothing by Partiality Are there no Non-conformists that use to hear you when they have Opportunity I am apt to think there are And thus they bear with you as to matters in dispute farther than you are seen to bear with them But this must be noted It is one thing for us to bear with your Conformity and another thing by Word and Deed to declare our approbation of Conformity or to conform meerly because you do so and require us to do so tho we suspect it to be sinful As the Lord Faulkland I
chuse oft to speak to you in others Words because I suppose if I spake the same things in my own Words they would not be so much regarded Reply p. 214. If they have any never so slight Errors and which appears so to me which yet they will force me to subscribe to and this you know is our case which M. de L' Angle seems to be ignorant of or else forgot himself and in these Lines I am upon went quite besides it if I communicate with them my Assent would be damnable or if they require the same subscription to some Truths which yet after my real endeavours in enquiry appear Errors to me I doubt not but my refusâ—l is â—o way damnable Something more you have immediately before This is home and answers M. de L' Angle's charging us with committing a very great Sin And where he cites Calvin and Beza p. 422. We may well be confident that they could not have submitted to such Terms as are put upon us And if he himself had submitted unto all that is required of us when he was here in England had he submitted to Re-ordination and owned Bishops aâ—a distinct order from Presbyters of Apostolical Institution I very much question whether it might not have drawn the displeasure of his Brethren upon him if not their Censure at his return as he speaks p. 421. Add p. 423. When I see what he says of the First Authors of the Separation I cannot but wish he had known them He condemns some Writings as unreasonable and passionate possibly he may mean our Answers to your Sermon but thâ—â— foâ— ought appearing in this Letter very probably he hath not seen them Yet â—fter all he comes to plead for Dissenters There is a very great number of good Men whose Faith is Pure and whose Piety is 〈◊〉 â—This â—estimony I hope is true and who remain separate from you only because their Simplicity is surprized c. And whether he should not have had the like Charity for very many Ministers as he hath for very many of their Hearers may be a question I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom 〈…〉 said they were of the Body for all that So why may not they who are of the same Faith and have the same Worship for substance be acknowledged as Brethren and still owned as in Communion with the Body tho they have not the same Ceremonies which are meer Shadows But he speaks more fully to the purpose p. 424. And I am sure I wish he could make us sure here That if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the abstaining from some Expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the Colour of some Habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great Pleasure From hence as from that earnest Expression he hath in the Page foregoing In the name of God then do all that possibly you can Onâ— would easily infer that he was little acquainted with the Case he understood not where we have stuck what hath thus long hindred our full Communion with the Church of England Otherwise for ought I can perceive here we might have had him pleading for us that such matters of difference might be quite removed or at least that they might not be urged and imposed And by what immediately followeth there p. 424. it appears he is a great Stranger to the Savoy-Conference never truly understood how Matters were carried or who have been the Obstructors of Union Had the Non-conformists then or at any time since refused to hearken and submit to fair and just Proposals which would not have pinched at all on that part which should be kept tender in every one Then had they been extreamly to blame and had stood very much in their own Light But God allows us not to break our Peace with him and our own Consciences for Peace with Men neither can true Piety Zeal and Charity three Cardinal Vertues which he commendeth in our Bishops and prayeth they may be increased more and more require so much of us which is not in our Power to grant and yield unto But seeing as he says afterwards he should be past all comfort if he should not see some new Attempt at least made for the success of a work so holy and of such Consequence in a time that seems so proper for it and Thousands more may say the like who truly prefer Ierusalem's Welfare before their chiefest Ioy I cannot but pray that those who are chiefly concerned may have all the Qualities of the Head and the Heart which are necessary to make them able and willing to contribute to this good Work Upon the Third Letter from Monsieur Claude ADD P. 439. Tho he says the distinction betwixt the Bishop and Priest is very Antient yet had he been required to own this Distinction as grounded on the Word of God and to assert the Right of Episcopacy as of Apostolical Institution I very much question whether this would not have gravelled him Add P. 440. I believe there are very few to be found amongst us that question the Ordination of all ordained by Bishops And many would be glad if it was permitted that some of you would sometimes help us in our Meetings Where he speaks of Christian Unity and Concord to my poor understanding Mr. Corbet speaks more soundly accurately and distinctly P. 441. He is expressly against Tyranny over the Soul and Mens forcing the Conscience by imposing a necessity to believe that which they believe and to practise that which they practise where we must suppose the things themselves are not necessary And according to what follows in this case The external Communion ceases of right and there is not any that is lawful to be had any more with such Was there not need of an Index Expurgatorius here This makes something for Dissenters and pinches some where else And what follows that We do not believe that a single difference of Government or Discipline nor even a difference of Ceremonies innocent in their own Nature is a sufficient occasion to break the sacred bond of Communion is little to your purpose I think a single difference of Ceremonies should not break Communion where there is an Vnion in the same Faith and in things necessary But there is more than a single difference of Ceremonies where no difference is allowed but the same Ceremonies are imposed on all tho one part cannot look on them as innocent Ceremonies P. 442. Speaking of the Protestant Churches in France he says We utterly disapprove and see with Grief certain Extreams whereinto some of the one side and the other do cast themselves The one looking upon Episcopacy as an order so absolutely necessary that without it there can be no Ecclesiastical Society c. Then according to them there may be true Churches true Ministers without Bishops And as they are ready to
Though Magistrates may regulate us in the Circumstances of those Duties which the Law of Nature or Gospel doth command yet if on such Pretence they violate or contradict either the Law of Nature or the Gospel and dedstroy the Duty it self or its End whether we are bound in such Cases to obey them Or whether it be not enough that we patiently suffer First Plea for P. p. 104. Q. 6. Whether the Kings of Israel had Power to forbid the Priests exercising their Office according to God's Law Or whether they could change or abrogate their Office ibid. p. 20. Of Solomon's puting out Abiathar see p. 21. Whether might they then have put out a lawful Priest that had not forfeited his Life or Office Or might they have put any one in his Place that had not Right from God or that was unqualified Or might they have forbidden the Priests the Work appointed them by God ibid. p. 22. Q. 7. Whether such as Christ's Laws empower to ordain others to the Work of the Ministry have Power from Christ to hinder the Ordination of such as Christ's Laws admit into the Ministry ibid. p. 25. Q. 8. Whether the Magistrate besides the Power of the Temples and Tithes and publick Maintenance and Liberty also hath the Power of Ordination or Degradation that no Man may be a true Minister without or contrary to his Consent Sacrileg Desert p. 11. Whether were not many of the Non-conformist's true Pastors of their several Flocks before they were silenced and cast out ibid. And whether did the ejecting them from the Temples and Tithes degrade them or make them no Pastors to their Flocks Though Prudence may require Minister and People to consent to a Dissolution of such a Relation when they cannot hold it without greater hurt than benefit ibid. Q. 9. Though Princes or Patrons may 1. Offer meet Pastors to the Ordainers and Consenters to be accepted when there is just Cause for their Interposition 2. And may hinder both Ordainers and People from introducing intolerable Men. 3. And when a Peoples Ignorance Wilfulness Faction or Division makes them refuse all that are truely fit for them may urge them to accept the best and may possess such of the Temples and publick Maintenance and make it consequently to become the Peoples Duty to consent Yet whether Christ and his Apostles have not settled the Right of Ordination on the Senior Pastors or Bishops and the Right of consenting in the People First Plea for P. p. 33. And whether any Man can be the Pastor of a Church de jure or truly de facto against the Church or Peoples Will or without their Consent ibid. p. 25. As the Saying of Cyprian is well known that the People have the greatest Power both to chuse a worthy Priest and to refuse or forsake the unworthy ibid. p. 77 And when in England it belongeth 1. To the Patron to present 2. To the Bishop to ordain and institute and therefore to approve and invest 3. To the People Iure Divino to be free Consenters 4. And to the Magistrate to protect and judg who shall be protected or tolerated under him if these four Parties be for four Ministers or for three or two several Men and cannot agree in one Whether the culpable Dissenters will not be the Causes of Schism ibid. p. 50. Q. 10. Whether the Churches and Councils were in the right or no which for 700 yea 1000 Years held that the calling of a Bishop was null that had not the Clergies Election and the Peoples Election or Consent And if Usurpers should thrust out the Bishops and Conformists and make themselves our Pastors against our Wills what would the Bishops think of such Would they hold it unlawful to separate from such agreeing with them in Doctrine and Worship Ans. to Dr. Stil Serm. p. 27. Q. 11. If a lawful Magistrate or Prince put in place of Pastors Persons of untried and suspected parts of Fidelity Whether will his Imposition make such the true Pastors of that Church before and without the Peoples Consent Fiâ—st Plea for P. p. 55. If so then whether might not one Roman Emperour have undone all the Churches and Souls in the Empire in a great Degree by imposing on them insufficient heretical or malignant Pastors ibid. p. 56. If People were as much under Princes for chusing Guides for their Souls as a Daughter in her Fathers House is under her Father for the choice of an Husband which yet we have not seen proved yet as he can be no Husband to her without her Consent though She culpably deny Consent Query Whether it be not so here that they can be no Pastors to People till they consent Way of Concord p. 209. § 18. But whether hath God authorized the Magistrate to chuse what Persons every Man in his Dominions shall entrust his Soul to as the Pastor whose Conduct he is bound in Conscience to obey Ans. to Dr. Still Serm p. 14. Whether shall the People have any Judgment of discerning or not If yea must not the Bounds of it be shewed without denying the thing as if that would bring in all Confusion If Usurpers claim the Crown must not Subjects judg which is the true King and defend his Right Will any say if the People be Judges they may set up Usurpers and put down the King When they are but Discerners of that which is before their Duty and have no Right to err or alter the Law and Right can any dreadful Consâ—â—uence be proved to follow on it Or if it be otherwise must they not be ruled as Brutes and so must not â—udg so much as whom they are to obey Is there any Christian that dare say that Bishops or Princes are in all things to be obeyed lest the People be made Judges First Plea for P. p. 70 71. Q. 12. Whether the Ministerial Office be taken up upon Tryal or for a time or during Life with a Capacity to perform the work If the latter be granted then whether it be any less than 1. Horrid Sacriledg 2. Perfidious Covenant-breaking 3. Disobedience to God 4. Cruelty to Souls 5. And unthankfulness for great Mercies if any of us shall desert our undertaken Office yea tho a silencing Diocesan should forbid us the exercise of it unjustly Sacriledg Desert p. 25 30. Q. 13. If Rulers may silence the faithful Ministers of Christ who knoweth where to bound his Obedience to such Silencers If a 1000 or 2000 faithful Ministers must cease Preaching when so forbidden why not 3000 why not 4000 If half a Kingdom can you satisfy the Consciences of the other half that they must not do so too and so all Christian Kingdoms conform to Muscovy when the Prince commandeth it And if a 1000 or 2000 or 3000 Parishes must chuse the apparent hazard of their Souls and refuse such helps as Experience certifieth us they greatly need in Obedience to Man why must not the rest of the Parishes do so
so far without such cost and pains and loss of time as will deprive them of the Benefit 2. When Parishes are so great that the allowed Pastors cannot preach to half or a fourth or tenth part and cannot visit half the sick c. 3. Where the allowed Pastors are so slothful or proud that they will not condescend to such Offices of personal Help as the People have need of especially to the poorer sort 4. Where they are young raw or ignorant unable to counsel People as their necessities require in order to their Salvation 5. Where they are so profane and malignant that if poor People come to them with Cases of Conscience or for Counsel what they must do to be Saved they will but deride them and would make them believe that to be sollicitous about Salvation and afraid of Sinning and seriously Godly is but to be Hypocrites Melancholly or Mad. 6. Where they are Heretical and not to be trusted in point of Faith When in any of these Cases the People or part of them are deprived of that Pastoral Help which their necessity requireth and God commandeth whether may they not seek it where they can best have it Ib. p. 100 101 102. Whether many Souls are not like to be fed or famished and consequently to live or die as Non-conformists do their Duty or neglect it Sacril Desert p. 84. And whether if the poor were famishing about us any Law of Mans can disoblige us from relieving them Ib. p. 85. Q. 57. If they that are vowed to the Ministry are bound to exercise the Ministry and otherwise would be sacrilegious and cruel to Souls can they preach without Auditors And can those Auditors be no Congregation Ib. p. 70. Q. 58. Where both the ejected and imposed Minister are fit Persons whether may not the People take them both conjunctly for their Pastors each administring to the same Church according to their various Liberties and Capacities ib. p. 11. Q. 59. If Conformists generally would set themselves to preach and pray in a sound and serious holy manner and encourage and promote Piety in the People and willingly accept of all the Help they could get here if they endeavoured to do God and his Church more Service than those that went before them whether they would not be more honoured at least by the better sort and that deservedly than ever they must look to be for Rigidness about Ceremonies c. Whether Godliness be not that which godly People most care for ibid. p. 126. Q. 60. Whether would they have People taught reformed saved or not If yea would they not have necessary help to do it If not are such fit to be Ministers of Christ And does that Man truly know what it is to be a Minister or a Christian that perceives not a necessity of Help if he can have it ibid p. 129. And if things in England were once brought to that pass that really our Labour would be unnecessary in the Judgment of those that are not Infidels Ignorants or malignant Enemies of an holy Life whether need any fear coming to loss if they were bound for us that we would presently gratify all that desire our Silence or Banishment rather than trouble Men with needless Work ib. p. 134. Q. 61. Whether is it the Paucity of ignorant and ungodly Souls or the great Number Ability Zeal and Diligence of the Conformists that makes the Labours of others needless Or what are their Thoughts of Souls of Sin of Repentance of Holiness and of their own Sufficiency and Labours Ib. p. 57. As of old every single Church had usually many Presbyters and Deacons with the Bishop so is it not undeniable that many of our Parishes have Work enough for many Ministers And whether the only thing pretended for our present Paucity be not the want of Maintenance with the want of worthy Men First Plea c. p. 227. Q. 62. Whether then might it not have been expected of such as needed and desired the help of their Brethren that long ere this they should have petitioned Rulers for the Liberty of their Ministry when all knew that there was no Hope their own petitioning should have Success Whether might they not have humbly acquainted our Rulers That all our Labours conjoyned are too little that they needed our Help and the ignorant our Teaching that their Judgment was our Ministry is more necessary than our personal Conformity And whether should not Ministers of all Men have been most sensible of the Churches Breaches Loss and Danger and most compassionate over Peoples Souls Sacril Desert p. 135. And whether had they not healed all our Breaches if they had petioned and prevailed but for these two things viz. 1. That the door of Entrance might not have been barred by any other Subscriptions Professions or Oaths than what were used in the Churches of Christ till the Exaltation of the Papacy for 600 Years besides the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy and the subscribing the Doctrine of the Church of England in the 39 Articles according to the 13th of Queen Elizabeth 2. That those so subscribing who dare not use the Liturgy and Ceremonies might have leave to preach in the Churches which use them under Laws which shall restrain them from all unpeaceable Opposition to what they dare not use or to the Government of the Church ibid. p. 136 137. And what but a spirit of Envy or a carnal Interest cross to the Interest of Christ and Mens Salvation should grudge at their Preaching while they are responsible for all they say or do amiss First Plea c. p. 249. Q. 63. Whether the Accusers of the Non-conformists who feign strange things of them relating to Doctrine and Government which they do not own do not 1. Hereby render them contemptible and odious as brain-sick Persons who keep up a dividing Faction in spight of the Light and Obligation of the common Principles of Humanity and Society 2. And do they not hereby imprint the Stamp of Satan viz. the hatred of their Brethren on the minds of such Hearers as will believe them and receive the Impress 3. And do they not hereby fill Families Cities and Countries with all that Spawn of ugly Sins which are the Genuine Fruits of such Hatred and Contempt and keep Men also from Repentance for any thing that they have said or done how cruelly soever against such Ministers and others that are represented as so odious to them 4. And do they not hereby fortify the Peoples Souls against receiving converting or edifying Instruction by such accused Ministers 5. And do they not thus furnish Papists Infidels and other Adversaries with matter of Accusation against one part of the Ministers and Servants of Christ c. Iudgment of Non-conformists in Second Plea for Peace p. 21 22. And whether is it not diabolical for any to be angry if as we have Opportunity we so fâ—r undeceive the People as to acquaint them with our