Ministers whom he taunteth as high pretenders to and self-applauders in wisdom and self-denial would in so critical a Time have joined with them against the common Enemy or let them know their Sense of the present state of things Except in their Ceremonies the Non-conformists were never backward to join with them and much less at that time for letting the Church-men know their sense of things I know not what occasion they had for that except in their Sermons in which they were asplain and faithful against Popery as their Brethren were He next falleth heavily on the Plea for Peace and true and only way of Concord as most Vnseasonable and Divisive pieces The Author of these Books is of age and ability to answer for himself and yet living and writing I need say nothing for him only this I make bold to say abating the vehemency of the stile and forwardness of that learned man's genius which sometimes run into over-lashes that another cannot so well defend as himself for the substance of the Books let the Dr. try it when he will he may possibly find it a hard-enough Task to deal with them What that Author saith in the name of the whole party which the Dr. taketh advantage from p. 37. doth not oblige the party further than they see Cause to own it Sect. 28. The Reverend Dr. doth begin p. 39. to give account of the occasion and Design of his Sermon which was answered by several Hands and in defence of which this Book now under our consideration was written I shall concern my self little about it being ready to give all possible Charity to the design of so worthy a person in undertaking and managing that Affair I shall consider what is said on this occasion no further than shall be needful to the defence I now manage of our present way It is most injurâ—ous that he asserteth that by such Books as he had mentioned the zeal of many was turned off from the Papists against those of the Church Is there any thing in these Books that favoureth Papists or any thing that maketh the Church of England worse than that of Rome If withdrawing from the Corruptions of the Church be defended this hath no tendency to lessen Zeal against Papists He that complaineth of hard usage tho' without cause should not so retaliate as to call his Brethren who differ from him and give reasons for their so doing an enraged but unprovoked company of Men. This and much of that nature we resolve patiently to bear He must give us leave to deny what he imputeth to our way p. 40. That It is a great dangerous and unaccountable Separation If his Arguments against it prove as hard as his Words it will not be easie to stand before him if this be to touch us with a soft and gentle hand as ibidem what will his severities prove Sure he hath forgot himself when with the same breath he calleth us peevish and partial men and saith he resolved to give us no just provocation by reproachful Language or personal Reflections Sect. 29. The Vnseasonableness of this make-bate Sermon is objected which he attempteth to disprove with a Flood of Words all built on this Foundation That the Church was reviled run down by a popular Fury c. This is the usual respect the learned Dr. is pleased to treat his Antagonists with Other men think that a modest Dissent and with-holding Communion in unlawful things backed with solid Reasons given for so doing was all that the Non-conformists were guilty of and that that needed not give such an Alarm as if there had been a Design to ruin the Church as he fansieth and unbyassed men will think that such a Sermon on purpose chosen to be preached before the Magistrate rather than before his Ordinary Hearers doth not savour so much of a design to guard the Consciences of the People against Non-conformity as of some other Design what that was may be easily guessed at for all that is said to the contrary I speak now of the Tendency of the thing rather than of the Intention of the person but I rather chuse to wave this matter than contend about it being more concern'd about the Truth of what was said than the Season of Saying it I shall be as little concerned about the sharpness and severity of his Sermon which is the other Objection that he answereth from p. 44. though I am sure what I have already noted in this Preface sheweth that such a way of treating Dissenters is not ab hoc homine alienum but I must do him that right as to acknowledge that there is more mildness expressed in the Sermon than here he being galled by the pungent Reasons of his Answerers yet there wants not some Vinegar in the Ink that the Sermon was written with but I confess that is so common a fault among imperfect men that we must say Veneam damus petimusque vicissim for my part I study to shun it but if I be overtaken in this fault I am willing to be admonished and corrected We think Schism as great a Sin as the Dr. doth and seeing he thinketh the blame of it is on our part I judge it but consequent to that Opinion that he exposed it and us by reason of it with all its Aggravations and if we cannot clear our selves in this matter let us lie under as much blame as he can load us with But withal I hope he will remember that if the Schism be caused by the fault of his party all the sad imports of his excellent Discourse will return on his own Head and those of his way Wherefore I wish all this had been waved and the merits of the Cause only minded Sect. 30. The Expression that his Adversaries are so offended with to wit that he saith p. 49. The most godly People among them can least endure to be told of their faults is as I think not sufficiently vindicated by saying that He meant it of them who will not hear their own Teachers telling them of the sin of Separation as Mr. B. alledgeth for they that are so unteachable are not the most godly of the Non-conformists I hope there are among them who can hear Sin of whatever sort charged on them and soberly consider what is said and if on Enquiry they be convinced of a fault will humble themselves and confess if not will soberly clear their Innocency by Reasons Far less is it a fit Vindication of this Assertion to apply what he had said to Dr. O. Mr. B. Mr. A. and the rest of the Answerers of his Sermon I hope he doth not think that Defence of Truth or of that which one is convinced to be such is alwaies the Sin of not enduring to be told of faults Neither do I by so saying referr the determining of our Debates to mens Fancies which he hinteth p. 47. that we call the Dictates of Conscience I am sorry that he doth
for they all stand on one bottom to wit that they are not instituted but more of this in its due place For Mr. Baxter's Authority we lay little weight on it he hath his own Singular Opinions which neither party do unanimously allow His Reasons in their place we shall Consider What he saith of the Crossing the Baptized Party I know not that I shall hereafter be put in mind of it wherefore I answer That tho' it be the Ministers Action yet it is the Parties or his Representatives passion and that Personal It cannot be done on my Person or my Child 's without my Consent and Submission as if I willingly suffer Holy Water to be sprinkled on me I am culpable in reference to that Superstition So it is in this case Sect. 37. The heavy Complaints that he maketh Pag. 58. of the unmanly and barbarous usage that he met with for his Sermon I am wholly a stranger to and can pass no Judgment on it but if this be as he saith it is no way to be justified But he should not charge the party with this There are some Scurrilous and Mean wits among all Parties of men who have no other way to express their Zeal against what they dislike And if we should trouble the world with such publick Resentments of the same kind of dealings and worse that we and our way have met with and Daily do meet with not only from the Rabble and drunken boozers of his party but from Pulpits and the Press not by the baser Phamphelteers only but famous Authors witness Dr. Heylin's History of Presbytery we might write Books abundance His citation of Bishop Whitgift cometh little short of a full proof of what I now say in that he representeth us as Depravers Raillers Back-bâ—ters Inventors of Lyes and spreaders of false Rumors and that of the best deserving men if they but come short of pleasing our humour Sect. 38. The Dr. next p. 59. taketh a view of the forces that he saith were mustered up against his Sermon and passeth a Verdict on each of his Adversaries which I shall not stay to Consider Only I think he Treateth Mr. B. with too much of the same sharpness that he complaineth he hath received Tho' I think none who knoweth the writings of that learned man will applaud his severe strain And for Mr. A. whether the Dr. was piqued by some home Thursts that he had met with from him I know not but a man of his Worth and Learning should not have been so dispised and his VVriting Represented so Contemptibly as the Dr. dealeth with him the facetiousness of his strain needed to have bred no such Disgust it is neither so Low nor Scurrilous as the Author would make us believe others look on it as a condiment to prevent Taedium and nauseousness I know none that blameth the excellent Writings of Mr. Fuller which have a pleasantness not unlike that of Mr. A's The debate that next falleth in between the Dr. and Mr. A. about the true meaning of the Text of the Dr's Sermon he now waveth as I shall also do that about the proof of a Deity which I think might have passed as Forreign to this purpose Sect. 39. One of his Antagonists p. 71. chargeth him with changableness in writing here contrary to what he had written in his Irenicum about which he maketh Diverse Apologies A change in this Learned Man is too visible and if it had been to the better it had not been Culpable but because his Changes do not so much concern our present debate about Conformity to the present Church-way I shall not meddle in that matter at this time Especially a change being upon the matter acknowledged by himself p. 76. One thing I cannot pass over That he had Asserted in his Irenicum that if others cast them wholly out of Communion then is their Separation necessary which he would reconcile with what he here writeth p. 47. by shewing a difference as to this between the Excommunication of the Church of Rome and of the Church of England for saith he Our Church doth not cast one wholly out of Communion for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity but alloweth to Communicate in some parts of worship 2. Ours is but the lesser Excommunication which he confesseth publick defamers of the Orders of the Church to be under ipso facto by the Canons but that it layeth on no Obligation till duely Executed But the Excommunication of Rome is with an anathema All this is very little to the present purpose for if we be all ipso facto Excommunicated and if this Excommunication be most frequently as it is Executed against us and capias's issued out commonly against us and all this for meer Scrupulous Non-conformity as he calleth it by these means we are de facto put in such a Case as we cannot enjoy all the Ordinances of God among them and therefore we must either live without Gods Ordinances or have them out of Communion with their Church Again he Alledgeth p. 75. that he could not mean that there was an equal reason in these cases when he expresly determineth That in the case of our Church men are bound in conscience to submit to the orders of it Neither doth this help the Matter for if we think as we do that we are bound in Conscience not to submit to all the Orders of the Church some of them being unwarranted by the Word of God and if for this Opinion and suitable Practice to it we be so excommunicated as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances with the Church then we are cast wholly out of the Church and our Separation must be Lawful on the ground that of old he had laid down But pag. 76. He would in that case allow us a serupulous forbearance of Acts of Communion but not to proceed to a positive Separation But if we make use of his Allowance the Church who is of another mind putteth a Bar to our Enjoying all God's Ordinances What can we then do but either live without them or proceed to that which he is pleased to call a positive Separation We are not convinced that our Practice is condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad for all the Letters that he mentioneth of which in their place And it is a rash Assertion which he knoweth cannot be Tried pag. 77. That if a Council were called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the unlawfulness of the present Separation He our Author maketh good the saying Quod misere volumus id facile credimus any man that hath seen the Vniformity in almost all things that is between our mode of Worship and their's and the great Deformity that is between theirs and that of the Church of England will find reason to expect a quite contrary Determination from such an Assembly We may appeal in this case even to some of the Sons of the Church of England The excellent
we read judge and hear only on one side think it a temptation to examin cry out we are satisfied already are not willing to be informed nor glad of light fly out into rage at them who endeavour to remove our scruples c. If we be such men why hath the Learned Dr. written so long a Book to refute us it is no wonder that he stirr up the Magistrate against such and the People too to cry out away with such fellows from the Earth it is not fit they should live He asketh where lyeth the strength and evidence of our scruples If I should speak in his dialect I should answer in the arguments by us produced which he and all his party are not able to answer nor have ever answered but I had rather-dispute than scold He saith we may see light if we will We say we would see it if we could and think we could see it if it were to be seen He telleth us how easy this dispute is We assent and wonder that so Learned a Man should go about to darken so plain a truth He chargeth us with willful mistake a mistake we deny and make the contrary of it appear but if it be a mistake that it is willful we also deny and though we cannot in this satisfy them who are resolved to cast Iniquity upon us c. yet we can make our appeal the to Searcher of hearts who will one day judge us and our rash judgers Sect. 6. He contesteth page 373. with Mr. A. about some expressions of his that he alledgeth Mr. A. mistook there is no need of insisting on such debates Brethren should study to understand one another and construe every thing to the best But if the Dr. had been as careful to vindicate his own cause as his own words he would have refuted Mr. A's pertinent and weighty discourse pag. 72 73 74. which he hath but lightly or hardly at all touched He proceedeth pag. 376. to deal with another of his Antagonists who objecteth that these who cannot conquer their scruples as to Communion with our Church must either return to the state of Paganism or set up new Churches by joyning with the ejected Ministers The Dr's Answer is that this is new Doctrine the old Puritans supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of our Church altho' there were somethings that they scrupled at Reply I have formerly shewed that there were old Puritans that did both scruple and act as we do but I deny not that some did join with the Church but then their scruples and ours do differ They thought the Ceremonies were inconvenient yet might be used we think them unlawful and not to be used There was also another difference they met with some indulgence and were suffered to Worship God with the Church and forbear the things that they scrupled We meet with nothing but rigour and severe imposing of these and therefore whatever they did we are under this unpleasing choice either to sin against God and our Consciences or to set up Separate Meetings or to return to the state of Paganism i. e. to live without the Ordinances of God. Sect. 7. It is objected that we scruple joining in the Sacraments and living under some of the Ministers He answereth that he never heard this last alledged for a ground of Separation neither do I insist on it as I have before declared save where they Preach false Doctrine or otherwise corrupt the Ordinances so as we cannot join in them without our personal sin And this scruple hath been often heard of It is too vulgar a way of reasoning it is a hard case if People must fly into separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be Pray who ever said so But the Dr. would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joining with others their separation be lawful This is easily known by a less knowing person than the Learned Dr. St. for all men knows and acknowledge that scrupling can never make Separation lawful it is good ground for these scruples that must do that Wherefore all the instances that he heapeth up of unjustifiable Separations might have been spared as wholly impertinent O how easy is it to prove Learnedly that which no man denieth After one of his Historical instances of a Separation from the Churches of new-New-England he asketh what is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present Separation Ans. There is in it that these Separatists could not with any reason object to the Church from which they Separated that she imposed on them any Religious Ceremonies of mens devising or other unlawful terms of Communion and then excommunicated them for not submitting to these He telleth us page 378. that no setled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their scruples It is true neither is it fit they should allow it meerly on that account but withal he might have added that few setled Churches except that of Rome and that of England do tempt or rather force men to scruple and to Separate by imposing unnecessary terms of Communion which they know many count unlawful What he saith ibid. for Papists Anabaptists and Quakers pleading for the same liberty of Separating doth no way come up to our case Neither are their scruples built on good grounds nor are the things that they scruple known by the Church that imposeth them to be unnecessary things He wondereth that none hath taken care to put a stop to Separation by shewing what scruples are to be allowed and what not Hath this never been done by Non-conformists Have we not also taught that the Church ought to bear with them who soberly dissent in the lesser concerns of Religion and not impose unnecessary things on Peoples Consciences If these were attended to a stop might soon be put to Separation but if Men will scruple without cause on the one hand and the Church will impose without cause on the other there is no putting a stop to Separations till the Lord cure our Distempers Rigour and Persecution if it succeed to root out the Dissenting Party is one way to put a stop to Separation but it is none of Gods way and as it never had his approbation so it seldom hath had success Sect. 8. The Learned Author Sect. 36. falleth on a new Subject to wit the use of God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism I never look't on this as a sufficient ground of Separation and therefore might wave this whole debate But I think it is an abuse and therefore shall say a little on this Subject Here we have not any institution to guide us there being nothing in Scripture that I know of about Spoâ—sion for the party Baptized And therefore as on the one hand what the nature of the thing and reason make necessary should not be withstood so on the other what is beyond that should not be practised and far
maintain such principles as destroy the Justice and Equity of the Reformation I know not when we meet with them we shall consider them mean while we profess our selves ready to disown all Principles that can be made appear to be of that tendency Sect. 13. Bishop Sanderson's three ways how Non-conformists promote Popery eventually tho' not intentionally which he mentioneth p. 7. are such as to unbyassed men will seen unworthy of the learned Bishop to propose or the learned Dr. to applaud the first is By helping to pull down Episcopacy at which he saith Rome rejoiced But will any say that this Joy of Rome was because Episcopacy is such an Enemy to Popery when they have it as well as we and when it is not to be seen in any Protestant Church as in England yea I must say Except in England Is it not obvious that their Joy was for our Broils on that occasion and not for the Ruin of that which they love so well Will any deny that Rome rejoiced as much at the pulling down of Presbytery in Scotland and the hindrance of its Settlement in England for our Changes Anarchy and Confusions are their Advantage The Second is Their opposing the interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason The Third is Their frequent mistaking the Question especially through the necessity of some false Principles which they will maintain whatever come of the common Cause of the Reformation It is not easie to reply to these I shall only say there is no Truth in what is here said nor the Candour becoming a Disputant in saying of it without any pretence to proving it Let not the Dr. think that the Bishop's 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 will convince us the Folly and Indiscretion that he is pleased next to grieve us with the Imputation of and to back again with the same learned Bishop's Authority p. 8. is another of his Arguments which we will not attempt to answer save with the words of Psal. 123. 3 4. Have mercy upon us O Lord have mercy upon us for we are exceedingly filled with contempt our Soul is exceedingly filled with the scorning of those that are at ease and with the contempt of the proud What he after mentioneth of the Popish Instruments being for the most violent courses doth not concern us who endure but use no Violence Let them look to it who with such Violence do press their Brethren in things acknowledged Indifferent which they think unlawful and ruine them for not yielding What Service this may do to the Papists who are such Lovers of Violent Courses let the World judge The Jews by indiscreet zeal brought the Romans on them which they designed to shun If he will prove our zeal against Popery to be also indiscreet we shall endure the parallel He cannot get that Notion out of his Head p. 9. that was met before That Non-conformists attempt to overthrow the Constitution of the Church because they are against the Ceremonies What Service this may do the Papists may be considered to make the Protestant Religion which I suppose doth constitute the Church of England have a Trifle such an Indifferent Ceremony must be for such a part of her Constitution as with it she is overturned they will be apt to inferr that we reckon our Religion a Trifle Let it be considered whether talking at this rate doth not look liker a Transport than what can be justly charged on the Non-conformists Sect. 14. Who doubteth but the Papists envy the Church of England and wish her torn in pieces and wish there were no Bishops in England and that they have endeavoured to destroy her Constitution and Government But what is all that to the purpose Doth it hence follow that they who dislike her Bishops and Ceremonies are doing the same Work The Tendency much less the Designs of Papists and Non-conformists can never be drawn into one Channel till he prove that it is the Ceremonies of the Church of England that Papists aim to destroy and not the Protestant Religion in it and that their spight at the English Bishops is not because they are Protestant Bishops but because they are Bishops It may with as much shew of Reason be said That a Physician promoteth the design of his Patient's Enemy who aimeth to kill him whereas the Physician 's Work is to remove his Disease both would have the Man what he is not but there is no Concurrence between them either in their intention or tendency of their Work. What followeth doth as little prove his point as I shall shew by brief Answers to his Questions Did not Cranmer Ridley c. suffer Martyrdom by their the Papists means Ans. Yes but not because Bishops but as Protestants Did not they own the same Episcopacy which is now among us and which men by Book upon Book seek to destroy p. 10. Ans. That maybe a Question but I now suppose they did these worthy Servants of God had Reformed much but left this Unreformed they did worthily in their Generation yet as men who are Imperfect we may rather wonder that in that time of Darkness which they had been born in and under the prejudices of their Education they discovered so much of Errour than that they in that Crowd of Corruptions that they had to purge out over-looked this Sect. 15. Some further Argumentative Questions he moveth Is all this writing against Bishops and Ceremonies done for the honour of the Reformation Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us to fill mens minds with such prejudices against the first Setâ—â—ment of it and to make the World believe that the Church-Government then Established was repugnant to the Institution of Christ and that our Martyr-Bishops exercised an unlawful Authority over Diocesan Churches But whâ—ther will Mens indiscreet Zeal carry them Here 's a Tragical Outcry as if Non-conformists went about to destroy Religion because they are not for Bishops and Ceremonies What a strange unaccountable fondness have these Men for their Diana who talk at this rate If this Discourse have any Nerves it will at once condemn all these as the worst Enemies that true Religion hath who have found any fault in a Reformed Church as if it were a thing impossible that a True Reformation should be an Imperfect Reformation But thus it is with Men who have left Scripture-Guidance and become fond of Humane Authority in Religious Matters We honour the Reformers but do not Idolize their Persons where they follow Scripture we follow them and the Apostle required no more of his Followers 1 Cor. 11. 1. but where they recede from the Rule we must needs Dissent Sect. 16. It may very much clear us silence such Clamours of our Adversaries if we consider that the English is not the only Imperfect Reformation that hath been in the World and that what our Author here alledgeth would equally justifie all their defects and condemn all Endeavours after further nearness
Inclination and think the Dr. cannot charge us with any thing to the contrary in practice Wherefore it is without all Reason that he dateth the Presbyterian Separation from that time p. 23. Their building Meeting-houses and using Separate Meetings p. 24. will not prove it for the one they did before and the other was but a more publick owning of what was their private practice when under the lash of the Persecution Defending their practice by writing is no proof neither If he can prove that they do it on Principles that will justifie any Separation let them be blamed but this I suppose dropt from his Pen without due consideration That they chuse Ministers one after another is as little proof as the rest how to judge I know not of what his credible Person informs him Of ten Ministers coming into one City It is a hard Case when Ministers put to great hardships by the Five Mile Act that it being suspended they might not live in Corporations for their Accommodation Let the Author of the Peaceable Design cited p. 25. answer for himself I am sure such Non-conformists as I have conversed with never approved of the Tolerating of Papists Sect. 24. Mr. Nye is produced p. 27. as owning that Jesuits had a hand in our Divisions whoever denied it in perswading the unlawfulness of hearing the Conformists preach Whoever broached that Principle it was never received among the more sober and intelligent of the Non-conformists especially the Presbyterians it is their Corruptings of God's Ordinances not their dispensing of them that we refuse to join with them in and when we cannot join in the one without the other we must forbear both which is by a necessity from them not our choice but of this he will give fitter occasion to speak afterward What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter p. 28 29. 30. tho' there be Expressions of the keen Spirit of that learned Writer which might have been a little softened yet all that he saith proveth no more but this From among the Non-conformists have gone out some Sects that by their unsound principles have given advantage to the common Enemy which we deny not but lament but if this prove our way evil and tending to Popery the same must be concluded against the Reformation from Popery where the German Anabaptists sprung up yea Christianity shall not escape for did not Gnosticks and other like Hereticks arise from among Christians even in the Apostle's days Sect. 25. The Dr. p. 31. triumphantly appealeth to any impartial Reader Who most serve the Popish Designs those who keep to the Constitution of the Church of England or those who fell into the course of separation I hope the Judge that he constituteth having considered his Allegations and the Answers hitherto discoursed will acquit us of all accession to Popish Designs but if we should take as much pains to retort the same blame on his party as he hath done to accuse us it were easie to guess where the Sentence of Condemnation would fall but I delight not in such unbrotherly work and there is the less need for it that day unto day uttereth speech to discover the sidings of that party with the Enemies of our Religion That the Papists designed to force all to seek a general Toleration is not unlikely but that Non-conformists did desire or seek it is unjustly insinuated Sect. 26. When I consider what he writeth p. 33 34. I see cause to retort his own words on him which he useth p. 23. If such bold and notorious untruths are published now what account may we expect will be given to Posterity of the passages of these Times He doth represent the Non-conformists very unfairly if not very falsly as that on the Discovery of the Popish Plot the Non-conformists seemed to be Like men roused out of a deep sleep amazed confounded fearful of every thing mistrusting all that were not in such a consternation as themselves VVere they not as vigilant and jealous over the Papists as other Protestants even before that time Yea who that will see doth not know that they exceeded their Neighbours in this he hath forgotten what he had before so often declaimed against them That they pretended to be the most zealous Protestants about their fear of Popery their indiscreet zeal against it c. with which he besprinkles most of his pages But now of a sudden they are transformed into a sort of Men asleep having neither fear of nor zeal against it How doth passion blind men Impedit ira animum c. Their fear and consternation on the discovery of the Plot is as groundlesly affirmed as their sleep before it No doubt they were apprehensive of Danger as all the Protestant Nation were and still are but what Signs of such Disorder was among them he doth not say because he could not therefore a general Accusation was more apt to calumniate them by But it may be and it is beyond a may be they fasted and prayed more than some others did on this occasion and that some reckon a sign of Guilt and Fear beyond what is to be found in good men Some saith he in this case pressed the Dissenters to study Union among Protestants But were they then or ever backward to it on sinless terms or would they have had them abandon the light of theâ—r Consciences for Peace-sake in that time of danger He again chargeth the Non-conformists that Formerly they carried smoothly towards the common and innocent Papists as they stiled them and thought them equally capable of Toleration with themselves It were well done in the Dr. if he can make this appear against any one Non-conformist but if it be spoken with reference to them in general nothing can be more calumnious It is of the same stamp that followeth p. 34. Their trucking under-hand for Toleration with the Papists they represent saith he those of the Church of England as Papists in Masquerade Did ever any Non-conformist talk at this rate of Conformists in general as he would have his Readers believe And if it have been said of some and those of no mean degree in the Church time partly hath tried and it is like will further try the truth of it I commend his Humanity and being free of undue heat against the Papists on occassion of that horrid Plot. If there was due heat we require no more but he doth most injuriously charge us with rage and fierceness in that case I know not that the wise and sober among the Non-conformists if he will let it be said that there be any such among them did exceed due bounds of the zeal of God against such a party of his Enemies He next fighteth with the popular Censures that then passed on many of the Clergy which we are not concerned in I wish him to consider that as sometimes vox populi is vox diaboli so also not seldom it is vox Dei. Sect. 27. He hopeth that the Non-conformist
was maintained with greater Heat than Learning is the Dr's Dialect not seldom occurring That they courted the Vulgar most is like some others of his Representations if they did they acted not wisely But if the Vulgar embraced Truth while it was rejected by the great ones it is no new thing such Ratiocinations did better become the Pharisâ—es Jo. 7. 48 49. than this Reverend Author That they pleaded the Peoples Right of Election of their Pastors we own our selves their Successors in that Speaking railing we approve not against the Greatness and Pomp of the Clergy is no popular Theme but hath been insisted on by sober and learned men of all Perswasions But that doth not much move us we are content that they enjoy their Pomp and Greatness if they will let us enjoy the Worship of God in purity and peace That this will inferr a Principle of Levelling in Mens Temporal Estates is an insinuation unworthy of this Reverned Author Sect. 37. He still exposeth the People p. 26. as pleased to think what a share they should have in the new Seigniory to wit Presbytery in every Parish If any had such Designs in being for that way we blame their Intent not their Work or Opinion But might not we if we were so disposed harangue of the pleasure the Clergy taketh in their way in contemplation of the fat Rectories Prebendaries Deaneries and Bishopricks that they daily have in view but such ways of Reasoning I reckon fitter for the vulgar whom he so much despiseth than for Scholars He telleth of a mighty Interest they got among the people and compareth this prevalency with that of the Anabaptists in Germany What if we should compare the prevalescency of Episcopacy among the Clergy and others with that of Popery in Rome and elsewhere Arguments one as strong as another That others would refine on us as we refine on the Church is a Plea against us that would well suit and hath been often used by Papists against our deserting them If others do that which is wrong because we do what is right we are not accountable for that If he can make it appear that our Principles lead to other mens evil practices we shall disown such Principles I know not what Name to give his Assertion that the consequence to wit the Brownist Separation seemed so unnatural from their own the Presbyterian's Principles for nothing can be more rashly or falsly spoken It behoved the Dr. to attempt the proof of this not barely to assert what is so injurious to his Brethren and that he might well know that they would be far from owning All that we have from him as a Colour of Proof is a most unfair representation of what the Non-conformists had said That the Church had neither right Ministry nor right Government nor right Sacraments nor right Discipline One would think that they had asserted the Nullity of all these whereas they had never dâ—sowned the Ministry nor Sacraments but found some faults adhering to them as the Office of Bishops and way of calling all the Clergy and as to the Ceremonies that were annexed to the Sacraments which faults do not inferr a necessity of Separation further than the owning of them is made the Terms of Communion with the Church And it is known that Separatists went on other Principles even such as will divide any Church the most moderate and indulgent that is not of their way Of which after SECT II. Of the First Separations that were in the Church of England after the Reformation HAving followed the Reverend and Learned Dr. through his Historical Labyrinth about the Non-entity of Separation from the Church by the first Non-conformists and found how little Truth or Candour there is in his Account of these Matters and how little that little Truth that is in his Histories doth make against our Cause I shall now attend him in his Historical Collections to prove That when Separation began it was vehemently opposed by the Non-conformists who were dissatisfied with many Corruptions in the Church By the Non-conformists who opposed the Separation he cannot mean all the Non-conformists the Separatists themselves being also such but that among the Non-conformists some were for Separation from the Church and others opposed it And so it is at this day some are dissatisfied with humane Inventions in the Worship of God and yet have more Freedom than some others of their Brethren have to use them Sect. 2. But before I come to a particular examination of his Discourse I shall premise some things that partly might excuse my whole Labour in this matter and partly may render it more easie and expedite The first thing that I premise is That if I should grant all that the Dr. discourseth from p. 27. to 29. the end of his First Part it would conclude nothing against our Cause for it amounteth only to this That some good men were not of our Opinion nor practised as we do but used the Ceremonies tho' they were dissatisfied with them If Arguments from the Authority of Men could satisfie our Consciences we should not be Non-conformists for the Hinge of the Debate between us and our conforming Brethren is Whether God ought to be worshipped according to the Prescript of His own Word and that in all the parts of His Worship greater and lesser or may in some of them be worshipped by the Traditions of Men. We expect Divine Authority for every thing whereby we worship God and cannot rest on that of Men. And therefore if the Dr. could prove That all men that ever were who were not infallibly guided did worship God by Humane Traditions this cannot warrant us to do so And yet this doth not inferr Self-will or pretending to be wiser or more consciencious than all men yea or any men an Objection frequent in our Brethrens Mouths and more frequent with Papists against Protestants for it is not Will but Conscience guided by Scripture-light that we are determined by And we are alwaies ready to receive Light from the Word if our Antagonists can hold it forth to us tho' it were to the changing both of our Opinion and Practice And we judge no Man's Light nor Practice they stand and fall to their own Master let every one be fully perswaded in his own Mind But we dare not be so far the servants of Men as to subject our Light and Conscience to them If we may retort without offence It seemeth to us a less fault if it be any to seem wiser than those that have gone before us if differing from them import so much than it is in our Brethren to seem wiser than Christ and his Apostles from them they do manifestly and confessedly differ in the things we now controvert about Sect. 3. Another general Consideration that I premise is That there are such considerable Differences between the old Church of England in which these Non-conformists lived and this new Edition of it who now require
but held it for an Antichristian Sociâ—ty and therefore not to be communicated with Aâ—d that of the Independents who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches but thought it unlawful to join with them because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints that was among them Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists and that of the second by the Assembly of Divines and other Presbyteriâ—ns Both these were active separation chosen by the separating Parties and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church that aâ—e indefensible But our Separation if it may be so called is passâ—ve we are driven away we seek the Communion of our Brethren we are willing to bear wiâ—h many things that are a Burden to us and which we wish to be reformed rather than have Separate Meetings We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ the Petition for Peace is a publick and authentick witness of all this but our Brethren will have no Communion with us unless we will own the Ceremonies that they without any warrant from Scripture impose on us which we cannot do without sinning against God and wounding our Consciences and we can and do give good Reâ—son and Scripture-warrant for this our Scruple Let then any Indifferent Person judge Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the publick Worship of the Church by the Authority of them who condemned these fore-mentioned Separations But occaâ—â—on will be given to discourse this Matter further wherefore I now forbâ—ar Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi running through the whole Texture of it and that it doth not tâ—uch the Question in hand but I shall take a more particular yet transient view of it He saith Sect. 8. at the beginning The Separation being now bâ—gâ—n the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemenâ—y against it If the Dr. would prove any thing against us he must shew That there was no forbearing of publick Ordinances on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists before this the contrary of which I have shewed Also That it was Separation on that account and no other that they wrote against the contrary of which is most evident He may know that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation and can make it appear that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice It seemeth by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker that the Separation was charged on him as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles just as it is now with us If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride the two Characters given by Parker to the Separatists let the Guilty bear their blame But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with import no such thing and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general is not Brotherly dealing We love not to recriminate Sect. 9. He alledgeth p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood against the Separation Three of them were taken out of the Admonition given in by the Non-conformists to the Parliament He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were as very ridiculous men who laid down Reasons for Separation and yet were so much against other mens practising what they gave Reason for If he think them such men why would he bind us to their Authority which is the tendency of this long Discourse But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter His Mistake is In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances to be redressed not as Grounds of Separation His Misrepresentation is These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry Government and Worship as wholly unlawful antichristian and false for they owned the Ministry and Worship whatever thoughts they had of the Government as right for the substance tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them which they desired to be removed It is true Gilford saith they make a vile Schism rending themselves from the Church of England but doth he not add And condemning by their Assertioâ—s the whole visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time Which sheweth that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with but nullifying of Churches because of some Corruptions in them Gilford's words that follow p. 29. we are not concerned in We know that many were the sad effects of that Separation diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion to Janglings And it is not without this effect on some where the oppressed Party is Innocent as to the main but that proveth not that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies to shun this Evil but that they should not be imposed on us As to Gilford's blaming them for not coming to the Book-Prayers this he spake without Book either in the heat of Disputation in which many do over-reach or it was his Opinion but is not ours I agree with Gilford That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian not we who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship That Gilford was a Non-conformist the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove That all Non-conformists are fallible men and some of them mistaken in some things we willingly grant We also close with what his next Author saith p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church where he is by Providence placed and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church only with this Exception Unless that Church require me to sin and if I will not do so exclude me Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention that not belonging to the thing then controverâ—ed It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases not yet thought on may afford The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard and the Confutation of the Errours of the Separatists dâ—ne in name of the Non-conformists so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor 's is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 10. He thinketh Sect. 9. to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies with the Separation of the Brownists for if that be not desigâ—ed I know not what his Discourse tendâ—th to by setting down the concessions of these Separatists to wit That the Doctrine of the Church of England is sound and saving that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church So far we agree But they pleaded saith he that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such as overthrew the
very Constitution of a Church in which we differ from them as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did of whom he saith that they held That nothing could justifie Separation from the Church but such corruptions which overthrow the Being of it And he saith The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation lay in this and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church For proving of this he sheweth That the Separatists thought nothing could justifie their Separation but that which nullified the Church and it is no wonder for they minded nothing but an active Separation and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed It is true they mention the Service as one of their Pleas for Separation but not barely as unlawful to be used but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded For what he addeth p. 35 c. that the Non-conformists when they would disprove the Separation only proved the Church of England to be a True Church It is no wonder that they minded no more seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause But Did they ever teach that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful which is the one half of the Controversie that we now manage He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists p. 36. at the end That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this without giving the least advantage against our Cause for we do not separate our selves but the Door is shut against us by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies which we cannot use without Sin and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these Again We do not continually separate from the Church but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out the Separatists could say neither of these That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is is evident for they were men of so much Sence and Reason as that they could not imagine it impossible that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church because of sinful Terms of Communion required They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus to refrain from the Communion of that Church if that Communion were denied to that Member unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans or at least consent to the tolerating of it Such is our Case we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church unless we will approve by our practice the Ceremonies which we judge sinful with what Face can they blame us for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them 1 Sam. 26. 19. They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord saying go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile because he waited not on the Temple Service And yet the Necessity that he was under of abstaining from it was not so great as ours That was Bodily Hazard ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God. Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted as any that readeth and understandeth them may perceive What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson and Ball against Can is nothing against us to wit That the Church of England is a true Church From p. 39. He sheweth that Non-conformists held That the Corruptions of the Church of England were not such as did over-throw the Being and Constitution of it which we willingly yield to What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists p. 40 41. about Forms of Prayer and the English Liturgy shall be examined in its due place if the Lord permit I know some Non-conformists have had and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have But as now there are so of old there were others that could not comply with it What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian if he thought them Lawful to be used which is our Question I know not why he should be reckoned a Non-conformist But indeed there is nothing of that in what the Dr. Citeth p. 41 42. What he bringeth p. 42 43 44 45 46 47. out of several Non-conformists to shew that the Ministry Discipline and Hierarchy of the Church of England is not Antichristian nor the Church-Antichrist we are not concerned to disprove and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing it being wholly beside the question Some things he maketh them say that deserve a little Animadversion but I will not now Digress to take notice of them Sect. 12. He proceedeth Sect. 12. To give Accompt of the Independent Separation and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation I confess there is a present Separation that these Reasons do hold against for that same Separation doth still continue But he doth not prove his point unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude that we should use the Ceremonies rather than forbear Church-Communion with the Prelatists But his Reasons for what he saith we shall attend in their course What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists by the breaking of Brown's Church in Midleborough and his jugling in the Matters of God I know not This long Story hath either no design which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts or an ill design which I am loth to impute to one of his Worth. However it be we disclaim all concern in it There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others as well as among Non-conformists That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Publick Assemblies a Cursed Convenâ—icâ—e it may be there was cause if Brown was such a bad Man as the Dr. maketh him But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissentions that followed to the Judgment of God on them this we are no way concerned to Apologize for Their way was Evil and it did not prosper If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil let him pass what Judgment he will on what befalleth us but till then Sobriety in judging is becoming No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them because of the Confusions and Ruin that followed in Germany on the Reformation We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us but we are not convinced that the Things in Controversy are to be
reckoned among them Let the Dr. impute this to our Obstinacy at his pleasure we can bear it In this we are Murus Aheneus in the Poets Seâ—se Sect. 13. He telleth us p. 53. of the present Separatists going beyond Mr. Robinson the Foâ—nder as he maketh him of the Independent way who was for Communicating with the Church in the Word and Prayer He should have told us who these are It is true they thrust us out from Word and Prayer too by denying us all Church Privileges for not submitting to the Impositions and force us to seek all Gods Ordinances where we can have them in his way but we are far from withdrawing from the Word and Prayer in the Church of our own choice This Discourse against the Independent Separation I meddle not with and therefore pass over all that he saith from p. 53. to 59. only touching Two or Three Passages What Mr. Câ—n saith p. 54 of the principles of the Puritans inserting Separation is so far True that their holding the unwarrantableness of Bishops and Ceremonies doth inferr on them who act conscientiously that they should rather refrain from joining with any Church than own the one or use the other And if these be made the necessary Terms of Communion with a Church we must suffer our selves to be separated from such Imposers p. 59. Some complaining of the Mischief of Impositions a Word the Dr. is very angry with because unordained men were not suffered to Preach when and where they listed is no fit Parallel to the complaint that others make of the Mischief of Impositions when they are Excluded the Church for not using Humane Ceremonies In the one case there is restraint of what is contrary to Scripture no imposing in the other That is imposed to be done which is without warrant yea condemned in Scripture Such mean â—rtifices the Dr. reacheth at that he may ridicule our unwillingness to be Imposed on by Man's VVill in the VVorship of God. p. 58 he saith Presbyterians would not have all left to Conscience Who ever said otherwise or can say otherwise unless they would first burn their Bibles We never made Conscience the Rule it must be guided and ruled by Scripture What he saith of Popular Government let them answer it who are concerned He saith Humorous and Factious People will always be complaining of the Mischief of Impositions This Title of Mr. A's Book is a great Eye-sore to him but he should consider that on the other hand an Imperious Superstitious Clergy that will be Lords over Gods Inheritance in dispite of the Apostles Words will always be Imposing and take it ill that any should think their Impositions a Burden as wise and sober Men may do without being either Humorous or Factious He saith the Principles of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead men into Confusion Many think that such indistinct and rash Assertions are more like to lead Divines into Confusion in managing their polemick Discourses Must Conscience then be bound Hand and Foot and carried whither the Prelate pleaseth Will even Dr. Stillingfleet own Mr. Parker's Notion of the Publick Conscience Hath Conscience no use but to discern what is my Lord Bishop's Will or what the Act of Parliament saith We are as far from owning an unbounded Liberty of Conscience as the Dr. is but the absolute denying of all Liberty of Conscience is liker to lead Men into Atheism than giving them some Liberty to lead them into Confusion Let Conscience then have Liberty where it hath Scripture warrant for what it holdeth which is the Liberty we plead for to our selves and let it not be rigorously dealt with in things that are of lesser Moment in Religion where they that profess Conscience are otherwise sober and peaceable and there is no hazard of confusion from Conscience It is a more innocent thing where it is rightly dealt with than the Dr. taketh it to be and we think it is more to be regarded than the Rules of Order and Government in a Church which the Dr. seemeth to bring in Competition with it I mean such Rules as are but of mans devising It is false that the Presbyterians cannot Answer Independants as to the pretence of Conscience nor they the Anabaptists For the one can refute the other wherein they mistake and tell them that Conscience cannot make their Error to be a Truth And yet they can bear with Godly and Peaceable Men in these mistakes because of their Conscience Sect. 14. He telleth us Sect. 14. That the Presbyterians charged the Dissenting Brethren with being the occasion of an inundation of Error by their going upon the principle of Liberty of Conscience I am far from justifying that Toleration which the Independants pleaded for and which by their means some say was used in our late times of Distraction Then there was no King in our Israel All Error should be opposed Gross Error punished and restrained by force But will it hence follow that we must not have leave to Dissent even from those things that the Church imposeth without Warrant from the Lord All the Citations that the Dr. bringeth p. 59 60 61. are evidently against a vast Toleration The Vniformity in Religion that the Scotch-Commissioners speak of is not to be understood of Words in Prayers and Humane Ceremonies for would they not then have first setled that way at home but of Doctrine and Discipline and Worship so far as commanded by Christ. Sect. 15. The Dr. is pleased to give himself the Trouble from p. 61. to 73. to transcribe the Substance of the many and large debates that were between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren But he will find it hard to apply the condemning of their Separation to our Case For they refused Communion with the Presbyterians whom they could not charge with requiring them to use any mode of Worship but what was commanded They left the Church for supposed Corruptions which were none of their personal fault nor were they put under a necessity of approving them VVe are willing to have Communion with the Church if we may be suffered but to forbear these personal Accusations that were our Sin if we should do them But let us hear what conclusions the Dr. draweth from these Debates p. 73 74. The 1st is That the Old Non-conformists thought themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look on Separation from it as Sin notwithstanding its Corruptions This he thinketh he hath so proved that the shining of the Sun may as easily be denied Whether it hath been disproved in what is above discoursed and with what measure of clearness let others judge also how inconcludent mens Authority is in Gods matters hath been shewed The 2d Conclusion is That all Men were bound in Conscience toward preserving the Vnity of the Church to go so far as they were able So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful is
he thinketh it so easie that he practiseth more of it than his Brethren can do But that is no proof What he objecteth from the practice of the Martyrs is above answered The Third Concession That Communion with the Church of England hath been still owned by the Reformed Churches abroad I have before answered this also shewing That though some of the Divines for no Churches ever gave any hint to that purpose in their condescendency have shewed aversion from our withdrawing yet they have laid down Doctrinal Principles that necessitate what they are so averse from Their receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the harmony of Confessions the Dr. bringeth as an Argument against Separation from Her But it is a frivolous Argument both because the Collection of these Confessions is not the work of the Churches but of a private Writer as also because the Author of that Book reckoning England among the Protestant Churches doth not by so doing oblige all to submit to her unlawful Impositions What Durel hath said or he or others can say of the good opinion of Reformed Divines of the Constitution and Orders of the Church of Englâ—nd may soon be Balanced by Testimonies out of the same Reverend Divines Condemning her Ceremonies as relicts of Popery Sect. 4. The Second thing that he insisteth on he beginneth Sect. 2. to examine the several Hypotheses and principles of Separation that are at this day talked of among Dissenters He saith some seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not capable to receive the Inhabitants And this he groundeth on some passages wherein some had defended their Meeting-Houses by this Consideration that all the Inhabitants in London could not hear in the Churches But did ever any of them say that this was either the only or main reason of their Meetings or was it not rather brought as an Additional Consideration to blunt the Edge of that Clamour that was raised against Non-conformists Preaching by them who neither could benefit the People themselves nor would suffer others to do it whereas the Non-conformists had other reasons for not joining with the Church but worshipping God without Humane Mixtures in other Assemblies But even that reason might have some weight ad hominem against the Silencers of Non-conformist Ministers I hope to give better reasons in due time and place for the Non-conformist Ministers Preaching But I am very free to declare that in a Church where there is no cause of withdrawing from her Ordinances this alledged is not sufficient Sect. 5. Some saith he Sect. 3. do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some Duties and at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties and at all times And from this he chargeth the Separation as a Mystery as if we dealt not openly and ingeniously in setting down our opinion But I ask the Dr. who of the Non-conformists did ever thus express their opinions without further Explication And if none have it is not Candour so to represent us We desire not to walk in the Dark nor are we ashamed of our Principles We profess then That in Parishes where Truth is Preached and not dangerous Error and in those Ordinances to which no Humane Ceremonies are annexed as Preaching and Prayer and when we are not obliged to wait on the Ordinances in those Assemblies where we have all the Ordinances in purity as we cannot even in the Parish mentioned because of unlawful Impositions made the Terms of our Communion with them I say thus we can join with them but not otherwise I hope there is no Labyrinth in this Declaration of our opinion Sect. 6. He is at much pains to prove that we go upon the same principles with the Old Separatists which he proveâ—h of some of the People out of Mr. Baxter's reproof of them for their unsoberness I know the Reproofs of that Learned Author were sometimes dealt at Random But if any of the People have undue apprehensions of things and understand not so well as need were what they profess will that ruin our cause Is there no such blame among his Party Do they all speak Judiciously and Soberly and with no Tincture of Popish Principles in managing their Conformity But he will p. 103. have even our Teachers to come near to the principles of the Old Separatists for what matter is it saith he as to the Nature of the Separation whether the Terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or unlawful whether our Ministery be called a false or insufficient Ministry scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors Whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institutions of Christ Ans. 1. A difference sufficient to make our Separation lawful and theirs unlawful is that we withdraw being put away by the Church for not submitting to unlawful Terms of Communion These left the Church and would not join with her even tho' these Terms had not been imposed looking on the Church as no true Church Answ. 2. Whatever fault we find with the Ministers of the Church and the Hierarchy we do not separate because of these we would join with you for all these Grievances if you would but suffer us to do it without sinning against God in that which is our personal Action I hope he will not alledge that the Old Separatists were of that principle Sect. 7. But this to wit that we are of the same principles with the Old Separatists the Dr. will make manifest And that 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministers of the Church As to the People Sect. 4. he saith We disown the Old Separation and yet make the Terms of Lay-communion for Persons as Members of the Church unlawful This I own save that I am not willing to contend with him about the Term Members of the Church let the thing be understood to wit that we think it unlawful to join in the Liturgy and Ceremonies and seeing we cannot have Gods Ordinances without these with the Church we think it our duty to serve God without these apart among our selves Yet are ready to worship God with the Church when they shall please to suffer us to do it without these Impositions This I say being understood we matter not much whether he call this a casting off of Membership with the Church or not Mr. Baxter he saith calleth it Schismatical in the Church to deny Baptism without the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and the Communion without Kneeling and that People in this case may join with other Pastors that will otherwise Baptize and give the Communion And I say the same What is this saith the Dr. but formal Separation Ans. It is nothing else And what hath he gained by that Concession For who ever questioned but there is a Separation in the Church of England between the rigid Imposers and the Dissenters But the Question is Who is the culpable cause of the formal Separation and consequently who
are the Schismaticks whether the Imposers or the Scruplers I know no way to determine this question but by falling upon the Merits of the Cause and deciding whether the things scrupled be lawful to be used and fit to be imposed on them who conscienciously scruple them so as no forbearance should be used in them what ever may follow If both these can be proved as I am sure neither of them can we were the Schismaticks If not unbyassed men will adjudge that Epithete to the Dr. and his Party If he had pleased to put the Matter to this Issue the far greatest part of his Book might have been spared Sect. 8. Neither hath the Dr. any advantage by what he next bringeth out of Mr. Baxter to wit It may be Schism to separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practices and Persons If these be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them for there is such a Case supposeable yet we affirm That the Schismatical Principles and Practices and Persons in the Church of England to wit the Clergy imposing the Ceremonies as Terms of our Communion with them are such as Necessitate our departure Or rather they do by these drive us away The Old Separatists saith he did not renounce total Communion with our Church but held Communion in Faith with us Lawful so do we with all the sound Christians in the World tho' we hold no Church Communion with them for want of opportunity and private Christian Communion neither is this in the Question and in some Acts of Worship as hearing and joining in Prayer and yet were charged with Separation by the Old Non-conformists Ans. They were justly charged with Separation because their Principles would separate them from a Church that gave no just cause by unlawful Impositions which ours do not The Separation Materially is the same that is here are two Parties gone asunder as were there But not Formally for their principle was The Church was no true Church and Ministry and Ordinances were Nullities Ours is Vnlawful Terms of Communion are required and for our Non-submission to these we are expelled by force He saith We must hold a Necessity of Separation Ans. So we do as things now stand But this Necessity is not of our making but of our Brethrens making and therefore they must bear the blame of it It no way followeth which he inferreth that we must be Separatists For it is an uncontroverted Truth That they only are Separatists who separate without just cause which we deny to be imputable to us The medium that he insisteth so much on p. 104. is but a Quibble to wit either we are Members of the Church of England or of no Church or of another Church If the first we must Communicate as Members If the Second we are no good Christians If the Third we own as formal a Separation as ever any did All this hath been before answered but the Dr's repeated Importunity forceth Repetitions from us I say then there is here 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If we own our selves as Members of the Church of England it will not follow that we are obliged to partake with her in corrupted Ordinances that is her Sin to impose and were our Sin to yield to There were Members of the Jewish Church in her degenerate times who sinned not in abstaining from Baal's worship and the Groves and High Places If we should say the 2d That we are at present Members of no Church that understood sanoâ—sensu might be our Affliction and not our Sin for if a Man be cast into a place where there are no Christians to join with or none that will let him join with them without he sin against God he is not to be blamed if he Worship God by himself Every good Christian is a Member of the Vniversal Church and ought to join himself to some particular Church if he can But it doth not always derogate from a Mans Christianity that his Circumstances are such that he is not Actually in Communion with any particular Church If we should say the 3d. it is true we own a Formal Separation but the Culpable Cause of it is not in us Sect. 9. If any ask which of these three we do indeed own I might answer as above Section 7. that the Question is not very material and but about words Yet seeing the Dr. seemeth to lay such weight on the Word Members of the Church I shall open this a little further And 1st I say ad hominem by the Dr's Doctrine we are not nor never were most of us Members of the Church of England and therefore not capable of Culpable Separation from her on what ever accompt we separate For he asserteth part 3. p. 350 351 that the Minister in using the Sign of the Cross after Baptism and saying we receive him into the Congregation of Christ's Flock and do sign him with the Sign of the Cross c. doth speak in the name of the Church and so as Baptism is a rite of Admission into the Catholick Church So the Sign of the Cross is into our Church of England I leave the Examination of the Truth of what he here asserteth to its due place I only now consider seeing this Learned Author taketh this crossing to be the admitting rite into the Church of England how he can look on us as Members of that Church who were never so admitted into it And if we never were Members in it how can we be blamed for separating from it But I am not so fond of this notion of the Dr's coining as to excuse our Separation by it I make no other use of it but ad hominem And I think it will be hard for him to Answer it But I come ad rem The Term Church-member is a relative Term it importeth a Relation between a Person and a Church Now in all Relatives there are the two termini the Things or Persons related and the Fundamentum Relationis That which maketh them so to be related one to another which must be something so particular to them that it is not common to them with all other persons or things And this is that we here enquire after That which maketh our relation to the Vniversal Church is Baptism and our visible owning of our Baptismal Covenant That which foundeth ones relation to a particular Church is the Obligation that he hath to join with that Church and the right he hath to be reeeived into its Fellowshâ—p or admitted to the Ordinances in it This Right and Obligation is either remote or proximate A Remote right and obligation to Communicate with every particular Church as occasion serveth every visible Believer hath this is a part of the Communion of Saints that they should join with one another and receive one another as providence giveth opportunity and thus every visible Believer is Aptitudinally a Member of all the Churches of Christ. But the
Proximate Right that one hath and the Proximate Obligation that he is under hic nunc to join with and be admitted to the Ordinances in a particular Church is that which doth actually make him a Member of it And the Foundation of this is not the rite of Admission whether it be the Dr's Crossing or the Independents declaring their Assent to the Church-Covenant or whatever other outward Expression men do pitch on for that end for these are but the external declarative Signs not the effecting cause of such Right or Obligation and therefore these are but the Tokens not the Foundation of Actual Membership But the true Foundation of the Obligation mentioned is ones being so Circumstantiated that he may conveniently wait on the Ordinances here rather than elsewhere which is determined by his place of residence not that I think the Division of Parishes a Divine but a Civil Constitution yet it hath its use for shunning confusion And the true Foundation of his right to be admitted is his being a Visible Believer Sect. 10. This Obligation to join with a particular Church may be suspended by that Church's refusing the Ordinances to the Man unless he will submit to their unlawful Impositions and his right may also be superseded and the Church not obliged to admit him to Ordinances by his contradicting his profession by Heresie or Scandal Wherefore as every one that liveth within the Precinct of a Parish is not to be owned as a Member of that Church as Papists willful Deserters of the Church Atheists c. So every one that liveth in a Parish is not to act as a Member of that Church in all things As they who cannot with a good Conscience submit to these Terms of Communion which that Church doth sinfully require To clear this a little further consider that to make Actually and Compleatly a Member of a particular Church beside his residence there is required a mutual consent of the Church and Person and that either Explicite or Implicite The Implicite consent of the Church lies in ordinary giving the Ordinances to such a Person Word Sacraments Discipline The Implicite consent of the Person lyeth in ordinary using of or submission to these Now where the Church is willing and the Person is not and his unwillingness is from no allowable cause the Person may be charged with sinful Separation where the Person is willing but the Church is not And this unwillingness may be expressed either by absolute refusal or by refusal unless the Person will submit to sinful Conditions the Person is no Separatist but the Church doth sinfully cause a Separation In this last case which is our case the Person is a Member affectu but not effectu This is to apply this whole discourse to the case in hand we are Members of the Church of England affectu i. e. Being by providence fixed in England where Christ's Truth is professed and his Ordinances administred we are willing to join with his people in the ordinary Assemblies of that Church in the waiting upon all his Ordinances yet we are not Members of that Church Effectu because the Church will not suffer us to Answer that Obligation that we are under to join in the Ordinances without submitting to sinful Terms And therefore because we cannot please God by living without his Ordinanâ—es we meet privately in little occasional Assemblies for the present distress where we have Christ's Ordinances purely Administred and there we are effectu Members where we thus ordinarily meet And for all this we are still Members of the Church of England affectu for we declare a readiâ—ess whenever these unlawful barrs from Communion with her shall be removed that we dissolve these separate private Assemblies and join in Christ's pure Ordinances in the Parishes where our Lot shall be cast If after all this the Dr. or his Party will charge us as he doth with Obscurity and Tergiversation in declaring our principles and Prevarication in manageing of them we must bear that injustice Sect. 10. He dealeth p. 105 106 107. with some of his Adversaries about their opinion how far they reckon Communion with the Church of England lawful I have â—o fully set down my opinion in this and I hope Presbyterians will generally say the same things tho' many of them may word them better that I think it not needful to interpose in that debate especially some positions of Nonconformists whom he citeth I will not defend He taketh up part of p. 107 108 109. in proving that Occasional Communion with the Church of England doth not make them who ordinarily join in other Assemblies to be Members of the Church nor excuse them from Separation I have nothing to say either against his Assertion or Proofs For it is not Occasional Communion alone but that with a readiness for constant Communion with her when her unlawful Bars from it shall be removed that both doth answer that Obligation that is on us to join with her and so maketh us Members so far as we can and doth also excuse us from a Culpable Separation Sect. 11. Some of his Answerers had yielded to Occasional Communion with the Church of England and that notwithstanding of some defective modes of Worship because holding Communion with one Church exclusively of others is contrary to Catholick principles This he highly derideth and laboriously refuseth p. 110 111 112 113. What is Argumentative I shall touch It is not their saith he Obligation to Peace and Vnity with the Church as Members of it that moveth but a certain Romantick fancy of Catholick Vnity Ans. That respect to Peace and Unity inclineth us to constant Communion with the Church but unlawful Impositions hinder the effect of these Inclinations And therefore by the fault of the Imposers we have no other way to shew our owning the Church as a true Church but this Occasional Communion Let him call it a Romantick Fancy or what he will we separate from no true Church and much less frâ—m that where we live but so far as we needs must to shun sinning against God. Again he argueth from a supposition That if we were at Jerusalem where there is occasion of Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and one should ask us what Church we were Members of If we should Answer we are fixed Members of no Church but can have Communion occasionally with all tolerable Churches Would they take such a Man for a Christian Ans. We are under no Obligation to make such an Answer as he feigneth for us for his own advantage I should in that case join my self to the purest Church that I could there meet with being at Liberty to choose and not prelimitted by my habitation if I could do it without sinful Terms of Communion And then should Answer to the Question I am here free to join with you or any tolerable Church but do Actually join with you as the purest during my abode here When I
apprehension can warrant us to break the Church in pieces The best grounded Scruples can only warrant our peaceable withdrawing and worshipping God apart which may consist with the Church's being whole and sound He doth exceedingly wrong Mr. B. and others in that he imputeth to them an opinion That better means of Edification is by it self a sufficient ground of separating from a Church If any have ever asserted that let them bear their blame It may be some might mention this as a cumulative inducement to join with other Societies but none of us ever held that this alone could warrant a Separation And yet the Dr. is at a great deal of pains to prove that neither the old Separatists nor the New-England-men ever held such an Opinion which he might have got us to yield to him without his spending five Pages in the proof of it but some men labour most in that which is least necessary I know not what name to give to the Dr's Assertion p. 117. That this greater means of Edification is now the main support of the present Separation Nothing can be spoken with less semblance of Truth SECT II. Of the Ministry of the Church of England FRom Sect. 7. and forward the Dr. debateth against Separation that is grounded on the Church's want of true or rightly qualified Ministers Here I shall have but little Debate with him I shall to cut off Debates as much as may be lay down mine own thoughts which I think are not different from those of most sober Non-conformists especially Presbyterians in a few particulars 1. We look on some of the Conforming Ministers as Persons of great worth and excellent Ministerial Qualifications and could live with great satisfaction under their Ministry if it were permitted to us without our Sin. 2. Others of them we know to be very bad men and ill qualified for the Work that they undertake they are Strangers in England who have not seen this 3. We are dissatisfied with some things in the Calling and Practice of all the present Clergy we think the very Office of some of them unlawful as Bishops Deans Aâ—ch-Deacons c. and their Ordination by a Bishop alone not warrantable their Call by Patrons we judge such also and their using the Liturgy and Ceremonies we look on as sinful These things I now only assert and shall debate them with the Dr. as they fall in 4. Yet we deny not any of them on any or all of these accounts to be true Ministers nor to have the substance of a lawful Calling Let this be understood of Bishops and Deâ—ns c. as Ministers not as in these superiour offices 5. Tho' we think a better and more edifying Ministry than that which most of the People of Eâ—gland live under very desirable yet we do not think that any defect that is in their Ministerial Call or in the Truth of their Ministry is a sufficient ground for separating from the Church Sect. 2. These things being premised I am resolved not to take the defence of all that some have written of the defects of the Ministry as a ground of Separation tho' I find many things cited by the Dr. that at first view may seem to have that tendency aâ—d he improveth them with all the advantage that he can and yet were not so meant In the very entrance of this discourse I meet with a most unjust Imputation laid on us by the Dr. In general saith he they declare that they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors as they approve and for this citeth not oâ—e Author but Mr. Baxter Is this fair dealing Did ever the Non-conformists make Mr. Baxter their general Representative or Hath he so much as pretended to write in the Name of them all Were it candid in us if we should pick out some passages out of Dr. Sherlock's Book of The Knowledge of Christ and impute those opinions to the Conformists as their Doctrine in general Beside Mr. Baxter nor no Non-conformist never made their Approbation the Rule by which Ministers are to be judged the having of whom maketh a true Church But the Dr. looketh on us as a Company of silly Rediculous Men and is pleased often so to expose us Mr. Baxter's Notion about true Pastors and true Churches I know he himself can best defend And therefore I leave him and the Dr. to debate that Case Sect. 3. He saith Sect. 8. If the People judge their Ministers to be unworthy or incompetent they allow thâ—m Liberty to withdraw and to separate from them and promiseth to prove it from many passages in several Books of Mr. Baxter's and others Still he representeth us as making the Peoples Judgment the Rule and that this Judgment is sufficient ground of Separation not considering whether their Judgment be right or wrong or that there is a Superior Rule by which all Judgment whether of people or others is to be governed All this we disown neither can the Dr. prove that any of us ever owned it Yea we further deny that we own a Power in the People to withdraw and separate from every Pastor who is really unworthy and incompetent But what he asserteth he endeavoureth to prove by three Arguments 1. Saith he p. 122. They leave it to the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legal Establishments to own or disown whom they judge fit This we deny And the Proof he bringeth of it is Mr. B. speaketh against the right of Patronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases for the unalterable right of the People Mr. A. saith every particular Church hath power to chuse its own Pastors Dr. Owen maketh the depriving the people of this Right a Ground of Separation If Dr. Owen hath done so let it pass for a part of the Independent Judgment which was the mistake of that Eminent Servant of God others are not of that mind For Mr. B. and Mr. A's words no such consequence can be drawn from them The People and neither Patron nor any other by the Laws of the Gospel have the right of Election of their Pastors but it doth not follow that they ought not to bear with being hindred the Exercise of this right for the sake of Peace and Unity Sect. 4. The 2d Argument is The People are made Judges of the Worthyness and Competency of their Ministers This saith he followeth from the former Ans. I have disowned the former and therefore this falleth with it Yet I here distinguish The the people have a discretive power of judging the fitness of the Man that is to be set over them with respect to their Souls so as he ought not to be obtruded on them without their being satisfied with him But the Peoples power of judging is not Authoritative nor Supreme much less absolute in this matter but Subordinate to the Pastors of the Church who have power of trying the Person Elected by the People and rejecting him if unqualified For the Spirit
Communion tho' they make it not necessary to Salvation and where-ever we must sin or separate Separation is allowed by the Scripture which tieth us to live peaceably with all men if possible and so far as in us lieth It is not in our power to sin for Illud tantum possumus quod jure possumus 2. The Apostle speaketh of using Ceremonies that the Dr. calleth indifferent as so dangerous to the Soul that Separation is no doubt rather to be chosen than the use of them and yet he doth not take notice of their being lookt on as necessary to Salvation Therefore I conclude against the Dr's Conclusion of this Second Part of his Book that we are not obliged to prove against his Party either Idolatry or false Worship or making the Ceremonies necessary to Salvation It is enough if we prove that ye make them necessary to our communicating with you and that it is unlawful for us to use them for hence it plainly followeth that we must either live without the Ordinances which were our Sin or meet apart for worshipping God which is our Duty as your Impositions and Severities have stated us PART III. IN this Third Part of his Book the Learned Author undertaketh to refute several Pleas that the Dissenters use for their not communicating with the Church of England and for keeping Meetings separate from the Church The Dissenters as they are of different pâ—rswasions so they use different Pleas in defence of their ways I shall not take the defence of them all but before I come to examine this part of the Dr's Book I shall give my opinion of the several Pleas that he refuteth and fix upon what I shall own SECT I. The several Pleas used by Dissenters considered I Behold the Pleas used for the present separating from the publick Assemblies as divided into three sorts 1. Some that I do not think to be any just cause of complaint against the Church of England 2. Some that are Grievances to us that we dare not own nor approve but desire a Reformation of them yet I do not think that they by themselves make Communion with the publick Assemblies unlawful nor can justifie Separation 3. Some that not only are Grievances but do justifie yea make necessary some sort of separation and these I shall afterward further subdistinguish Of the first sort I reckon the Constitution of the Church in its Members at first want of governing Power in the People and the Constitution of a National Church as it is scrupled at by some Sect. 2. For the second sort they are not a few neither can I promise to name them all 1. We are griâ—ved with Prelatical Government and taking away of that pariâ—y of Power that Christ hath given to the ordinary Ministers of his Church This we cannot approve and therefore Ministers ought rather to suffer deprivation of the publick Exercise of their Ministry than own it And people also ought not to own that their lordly Authority that they exercise yet because this is not required to be acknowledged as a lawful Power in the Church by the people I see not that we should withdraw from the publick Assemblies meerly because there are Diocesan Bishops set over the Church except our owning them by submitting to their Jurisdiction is required as one of the Terms of Communion with the Church 2. Depriving people of their Right of chusing their own Church-Officers is also matter of complaint but we must bear it rather than separate for that from a Church 3. The gross Abuses that are in the Discipline of the Church or rather the want of any thing that looketh like Gospel Discipline we lament but it not being peoples work to mend it nor the Abuses their personal action it is no just ground of Separation 4. Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism are an abuse but being extrinsick to the Ordinance we should not separate for that neither 5. The defects and faults that are in the Call of the Ministers and in their personal Conversation their Pluralities and Non-residences and several things of that nature we complain of and the insufficiency of many of them but do not separate for these while the Ordinances are not corrupted that we partake of 6. The Surplice and other superstitious Habits worshipping toward the East bowing to the Altar and such-like we dare not approve nor practise yet these not being imposed as Terms of our Communion with the Church we do not separate on account of them The lawfulness of these I do not now debate nor is it needful at all to do it in reference to the point of Separation that the Dr. chargeth us with yet they being things wherein we dissent from our Brethren I shall not shun to dispute such of them with the Dr. as his following Discourse shall give occasion for Sect. 3. There are a third sort of things that we dislike in the Episcopal Church of England which not only are matter of Grievance but do necessitate us and justifie us in it to depart from her Communion till these Letts be removed and they are of two sorts 1. The unlawful Terms of Communion with Her thaâ— She requireth of us without which she will not suffer us to partake with Her in the Ordinances of God as that we must worship God by the Liturgy that our Children when baptized must be signed with the Cross that we must Kneâ—l in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper that we must observe the Holidays that She hath appointed out Christ never instituted These things we think unlawful to be done and the Church tho' She thinketh them indifferent and unnecessary in themselves yet have made them necessary by Her imposing them and excommunicateth and persecuteth us if we will not use them and therefore a parting from Her on these accounts doth necessarily follow not only because we ought not to live without God's Ordinances which we cannot have with our Brethren but because if we would do so they would still persecute us if we come not to the Liturgy if we have not our Children baptized if we do not receive the Lord's Supper thrice a Year and especially at Easter if we do not observe the Holidays A second thing that layeth a necessity on us to have Meetings apart from them is their restraining of a considerable part of the Ministers whom Christ had sent to his Church and fitted by his Gifts for Gospel-Administrations upward of Two Thousand of them being put out in one day We think it is the Duty of these men to preach the Gospel and administer the Ordinances of God and the Duty of the People to wait on their Administrations and to own their relation to them It is true this by it self considered need not hinder our Communion and that ordinarily with the publick Assemblies for things might be so managed as no clashing needed be but this putteth us under a necessity of meeting by our selves and the sinful Terms
of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should
fitness for the Communion he saith 1. The greatest offenders abstain of themselves and they that come are usually the most devouâ— 2. If Debauched Persons come it is upon some awakening of Conscience Then both which nothing can be said more contrary to common experience 3. He saith This doth not defile right Communicants That is true and therefore it is no cause of Separation but it is the Churches fault and should be amended 5. and 6. Some Presbyterian Churches and the Church of Constantinople were for a Time without Discipline This is no imitable Example SECT V. The National Constitution of the Church of England debated HAving now examined what the Dr. saith for Diocesan Episcopacy I proceed to consider the next ground for Separation pleaded by some to wit the National Constitution of the Church of England I have above declared that I look on this as no ground for Separation yea nor cause of complaint if it be taken sano sensu Though I think every organized Congregation hath a governing power in it self yet this power is not Independent but Subordinate to the Association of such Churches These Associations may be greater or smaller one contained in another and so subordinate to it as the Conveniency of meeting for Discipline doth allow and because the Association of Churches in a whole Nation containeth all the Churches in it and may all meet in their representatives for the governing them all in common This we own as a National Church wherefore on this Head I have no debate with the Dr. except in so far as he is for National and Provincial Officers in this National Church Archâ—bishops and Bishops put but Provincial and National Synods in the place of these and I shall contend no further I shall not then medle with the substance of this his Discourse but only note a few things Sect. 2. The First thing that I take notice of is p. 289. Where the Dr. maketh the institution of the Apostolick Function in the Hands of twelve Men to be an Argument against Churches Power of governing themselves This proveth nothing for the ordinary Government of the Church must be regulated by what the Apostles appointed which is an abiding thing not by their own governing the Church which ceased with them Next p. 290. he saith the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles is Matter of Faâ—t attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses which I deny and have disproved The next remark shall be upon p. 291. where he pleadeth for Bishops joining together and becoming one National Church he shuneth mentioning a Primate under and in whom they unite and this he seemeth to vindicate from making way for Papal Vsurpation and and Universal Head of the Christian Church by its being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping the rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed This he saith an Vniversal Pastor must do and he therefore mentioneth this that any one may see that the force of this reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpation I cannot for all this see that it is more justifiable or consistent with Christ's Institution to unite a National Church under a Primate than to unite the Universal Church under a Pope Save that the one is a further remove from Parity that Christ instituted and so a greater Evil than the other but magis minus non variant speciem To clear this I shall run over these Four qualities that he mentioneth in their uniting under a Primate and consider whether they do agree better to him than to a Pope The First is it is intended for the good of the Whole so Vnited If we judge by Intentions no doubt this intention will be pretended to by the Papists also and is de facto as much pleaded by them and with as specious pretences And if we consider the reallity of the thing sad experience sheweth that neither the one nor the other doth conduce to the good of the whole but is improved to Tyrannizing over mens Consciences and Rending and Harassing the Church for the sake of superstitious Concepts of corrupt Men. Sect. 3. The Second This Vnion is no way repugnant to Institution This he should have proved we deny it Let him shew us more Institution or warrant for a Metropolitan than for a Pope If we should own Bishops as Successors to the Apostles yet an Arch-bishop a Metropolitan a Patriarch a Pope must still be beside Institution except the Dr. will own an Imparity among the Apostles and so be for Peters Supremacy The Third is That in this Vnion there is no usurping the Rights of others I say there is as really as there is in the Papacy for it is the Right of every one of Christ's Ministers to govern the Church in equallity of power with the rest this is taken from them and put into the hand of a Bishop and that right that the Bishop hath usurped from the Presbyters the Primate usurpeth from him and the Pope doth no more but usurp the same from all the Metropolitans and Patriarchs that they had usurped from these under them The 4th is not assuming more than can be managed Nothing but prejudice could hinder a man of the Doctors understanding to see that the Bishop assumeth more power than he can manage as really as the Primate or the Patriarch yea or the Pope doth For as the Pope cannot administer the Word and Sacraments and Discipline of the Church to all Christians in his own person no more can a Primate to a whole Nation nor a Bishop to a Diocess consisting of many thousands of People and hundreds of Congregations And as the Bishop can do all this by the Parochial Clergy for Word and Sacraments and by his Chancellors Archdeacons c. for his Discipline such as it is And as the Primate can rule a whole National Church by his and the Bishops Courts So can the Pope rule all Christian people ut cunque by Cardinals Patriarchs Metropolitans Bishops by his Legate or other Officers of his appointment I challenge the Doctor or any man to shew such a difference between a National Officer and an Oecumenick Officer in the Church as maketh one lawful and the other unlawful The Pope's usurping a Plenitude of Civil Power and more grosly abusing his pretended Church Power will not make this difference For we speak of a Pope and Primate as such abstracted from all Accidents of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 4. Pag. 292. He seems to expose the framing of Church-Government too much to the reason or rather fansie of Men when he saith That Vnion being the best way to preserve the Church the preservation of which Christ designeth by his Institution we may reasonably infer that whatever tendeth to promote this union and to prevent notable inconveniences is within the design of the first Institution tho' it be not
plead against himself For he saith p. 316. That he requireth no more but their Testimony that it be done sub populi Assistentis conscientia that by their presence either their Faults might be published or their good Acts commended that so it might appear to be a just and lawful Ordination which hath been examined by the Suffrages of all And after Cyprian saith It came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolick practice that a Bishop should be chosen plebe presente not by the Votes of the people says the Doctor One would think all this time the Doctor is secretly undermining his own cause and yet will out-face plain light to defend it Doth not Cyprian mention the Suffrages of all and yet the Doctor maketh him deny them Votes if their presence their Testimony commending or publishing the faults of the Candidate their knowledge and assistance can consist with Patronage and obtruding of Ministers on the people as a Master of a Flock setteth a Sheepherd over his Sheep it is one of Bellarmin's Arguments for the Doctor 's Conclusion If these do not import the peoples consent to be required and so amount to Election let any indifferent Reader judge It is plain that Cyprian not only alloweth the people this power but maketh it a Divine Right and maketh Ordination without it to be unjust and unlawful Wherefore if we should adhere to Cyprian's judgment there would be few Ministers in the Church of England and so more cause for separation than he is aware of but I do not improve his Testimony to that end The Doctor p. 317. bringeth Cyprians Testimony That it belongeth chiefly to the people to refuse the bad and chuse the good and yet hath the Brow to say That this is no more then their Testimony but if Testimony be chusing we require no more but Testimony It is nothing to the purpose that Lampridius says Severus proposed the Names of Governors of Provinces to the people to see what they had to say against them and that this will not infer popular Election of these Governors For 1. This was never declared to be necessary and appointing Governours unjust or unlawful without it as it is in our case 2. We have proved that the people have power of Suffrage and of chusing which was not granted by Severus That Origen saith a Bishop must be Ordained Astante populo is such an Argument against us as sheweth a very weak cause especially when so Learned a Man thought better to use it then say nothing For it is Election we speak of not Ordination in which we confess the people have no hand neither doth Origen say That this Ordination could proceed without the peoples being more concerned about the person than standing by while he was Ordained and yet even this favour is not granted to the people in England the Bishop will not be at the pains to come to the several Parishes to ordain the Ministers before the people Sect. 12. The 2. thing that the Dr. insisteth on is p. 318. That the people upon this Assuming the power of Elections caused great Disturbance and disorders in the Church To this I answer in general 1. I desire to know on what the people assumed the power of Election whether on Christ's Institution or any subsequent ground if the latter let him shew it if the former it is improper to say they assumed what was ever their due The Doctor seemeth to speak of it as an act of the people after that priviledge had been out of their hand for some time 2. There is no Institution of Christ but inconveniences may follow on it as long as sinful men have the managing of it Hath none followed on Church Power in the hands of Bishops and Presbyters Yea of civil power in the hands of Magistrates yea of power of Election in the hands of Patrons It were easie to fill a Volume with Histories to this purpose Will the Doctor thence conclude that all these should be abolished 3. As few inconveniences can be instanced as following on the peoples Election of their Pastors as of most other things The Doctor instanceth but four in the space of 1000 years that this power of the people lasted unviolated and that through all the Christian Churches I do not deny but more there might be but when so few occurr as observable to a man of so great reading it saith more against the Doctors design than all these Instances say for it 4. Most of these disturbances fell out by the Ambition of Bishops influencing the people and leading them into Factions and were occasioned by the worldly advantage of Episcopacy in the degenerate State of the Church and were not to be seen where Bishops kept within due bounds and were in a mean condition so that indeed this Consideration is more against Episcopal grandeur and imparity than against popular Elections As is evident from Ammian Marcellin whom the Doctor citeth as the Author of that Story of a Bloody Election at Rome when the Contest was about Damasus where he sheweth That they aspired to that Bishoprick with all their might considering how the Bishop was enriched Oblationibus Matronarum rode in Chariots were Gorgeously attired fared sumptuously and saith They might have shuned these inconveniences had they despised this grandeur and imitated the Bishops in the Provinces whose humble carriage poor fare and mean habit commended them to God and good men 5. It is worth our Observation that not one of these Disorders fell out for 300 years after Christ when the Church was in her Integrity and had not degenerated as she did afterward 6. There is a better means of preventing these disturbances to wit the Magistrate ought to suppress them and the Rulers of the Church ought to regulate Elections and take away the exercise of that power from the unruly as they take the Sacraments though peoples priviledge from them that walk unworthy of them When inconveniences fall in we must take God's way not our own to set things right again Sect. 13. This might suffice for Answer to all the Doctors Alledgeances on this head but further there is not so fair a representation made of matters of fact as need were For the â—st Instance the Disorder at Antioch it was not as he representeth it about the chusing of a new Bishop to a vacant place but about putting an Arian Bishop at least supposed to be so into the place of Eustathius who had long been peaceably in that place and regularly chosen but was injuriously deposed by the Arians Neither was Eustathius chosen at last as the Doctor saith but rid out the Storm and kept his place against the violent attempts of these Hereticks And therefore this Instance is wide from the purpose The next Instance is at Caesarea The person that carried the Election was Basil the Magistrates and the worst of the people opposing him Of this Nazianzen justly complaineth and it cannot be justified but cannot infer
saith it is evident that he doth it in the Name of the Church because he saith We receive him into the Congregation of Christs Flock and do sign him c. Answer It is not material to our debate which of the Two be said for the question is Whether the Church hath power to appoint a sign for dedicating a person to Christ when he hath already appointed a sign for that end We desire to see a warrant for the Churches appointing Dedication to Christ by her sign to be done in her name after the person is already dedicated by Christs sign and in His name If he say the Church only appoints him to be received by this sign into her number and that may be done in her name I answer by Christs sign that is also done by Baptism the person is admitted as a Member of Christs Flock But beside this it is evident that by the sign of the Cross is not intended bare admission as a Member of the Church but dedicating of the person to Christ not only from the plain words of the Canon of which already but by what followeth in the words used at the signing which are We receive him into the number of Christs Flock and do sign him with the sign of the Cross in token that hereafter he shall not be ashamed to confess the Faith of Christ Crucified and manfully to fight under his banner against Sin the World and the Devil and to continue Christs faithful Souldier and Servant unto his lives end Amen Will any man say that this is meer admission as a Member of the Church or into the Church of England and that no more is intended by these words Is it not made a sign of our Covenant or Engagement to the same duties that we are engaged to by Baptism To wit all the duties that the Covenant of grace bringeth us under the Obligation of The absurdity of this notion to wit that Crossing is meerly an admitting sign will yet further appear if we consider that in the same office of Baptism used by the Church of England the Minister having put the God-fathers in mind of Christs promise to the Infant to be baptised he is to say Wherefore after this promise made by Christ these Infants must also faithfully for their part promise by you that be their sureties that they will forsake the Devil and all his works and constantly believe Gods Holy Word and obediently keep his Commandments This is the baptismal Dedication I hope that will not be denied Now is not the Cross used to betoken our obligation to the very same things And therefore it must be a dedicating Sign as well as Baptism And it may as well be said that Baptism is meerly a rite of admission into the Church as that is such Sect. 22. He telleth us page 351. that all publick admissions into Societies have some Ceremonie belonging to them That we deny not and therefore Christ hath made Baptism the Ceremony for Solemn admitting the Members of his Church which he having done how dare any take upon them to invent new rites for that end As Baptism saith the Doctor is a rite of admission into Christs Catholick Church so is the sign of the Cross into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used withâ—ut prescribing to other Churches This now is the fine new Notion for the sake of which all the foregoing discourse is designed The Dr. deserveth the honour of inventing it for I do not find that ever any had thought of it before But I doubt it will prove but a Mouse brought forth by the long labour and hard throws of a Mountain I shall here remind the Reader of what I have observed already Part 2. Sect. 1. Sect. 9. that by this one Notion the Dr. destroyeth the great design of his Book which is to charge them with separation most of whom he here doth implicitely and by necessary consequence acknowledge never to have been Members of the Church of England they never having been signed with the Cross For if they never were Members they were not capable of separation more than another Mans Leg can be said to be cut off from my body to which it never was united 2. This to be the use of the sign of the Cross was never declared by the Church but the quite contrary as is evident from what is already cited both out of the Thirtieth Canon and out of the Office of Baptism both which are the authentick Writings of the Church wherefore this is to be lookt on as but one Doctors Opinion and we are to take the scope and meaning of the Churches Ceremonies from her own declaration and not from the thoughts of any one man when he is streightned in defending of these rites 3. I ask the Dr. if we who never were yet signed with the Cross should be willing now to join as Members of the Church and to submit to all her terms of Communion whether must we be signed with the Cross at our admission The same may be enquired concerning any Baptized in France Scotland or any other Church I suppose he will not own such Crossing I am sure it was never heard of if he say it is not to be done How do these become Members of the Church The Independents will require some token of owning their Church-Covenant even where it is not joined with Baptism why then do not the Church of England for the Dr. parallelleth these two admissions into the Church require this Crossing out of Baptism if it be meerly a sign of admission into the Church of England 4. If the Church and the Dr. too and all the Divines that Write in defence of the Church would declare never so often that this is the use and the only use of Crossing all this could not satisfy as long as the words used with it and the Religious State in which it is by their practice sixed do make the contrary apparent Sect. 23. Mr. Bs. allowing some Religious use of the sign of the Cross his Brethren do not approve yet his argument is good against the use of the Cross as a dedicating or common professing sign of Baptized Persons to wit that God hath appointed Sacraments for that end Then the Dr. answereth True but not only for that end but to be means and instruments of conveying grace to men for which God oâ—ly ought to appoint means Reply 1. It is not enough that men do not appoint other means beside Christs for all the ends that they are appointed for but they ought not to appoint other means for any of these ends because Christs means are sufficient for all the ends that they are appointed for Sacraments are not only sufficient to signify Gods promise of giving grace but also to signify our engagement to perform duty Wherefore we ought not to add new signs for the one more than for the other 2. The sign of the Cross is intended as a
a mind to expose the present Non-conformists as far degenerate from their Ancestors in the same Profession But of this more in its due place Sect. 3. He complaineth p. 2. of his own hard Usage on the like Occasion His Sermon entituled The Mischief of Separation was indeed solidly refuted by several Non-conformists and in that sence his Sermon was hardly used but I never heard before that hard Arguments were counted hard Vsage from an Adversary and if Bishop Jewel had no harder Usage for his Sermon there was no need of this Complaint unless it were to make his own hard Fate the more conspicuous by so venerable a Parallel This Reverend Author should consider That tho' we owe and give all due deference to the Memory of Bishop Jewel and to the Worth of Dr. Stillingfleet for their Labours in Defence of Protestantism yet it is neither Ingratitude nor Incivility in us to defend the purity of Gospel-Worship Worship against their Assaults We honour them but retain our Liberty of dissenting from them and of owning our Dissent when they mistake and are out of the way We call no man Rabbi having one Master CHRIST whose written Word we make the Rule of our Faith and Worship But one great part of the Doctor 's hard Vsage lieth in this That it hath been maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that he was put on that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise Persecution I confess Malice to suggest Evil and over-easiness to believe it is a thing too common among Dissenting Parties the Lord heal these Distempers on both hands but the particular Ground of this Charge on his Antagonists should have been mentioned If any have suspected that he was put on the Work if the work be good that doth extenuate the fault of such Suspicion I know no Evil in following either the Advice or Command of others to do our Duty So that hither to there is no Ground for the heavy Charge of Malice and malign Credulousness If any have judged his Design that is not fair dealing such Secrets are to be left to the Judgment of him who knoweth the Hearts But tho' I have a great deal of Charity in reference to the Intentio Operantis yet it is not so easie to pass a favourable Judgment on the Intentio Operis but he endeavoureth afterward his Vindication in this where I shall attend him Sect. 4. His professed Design in preaching that Sermon was only his just apprehension That the Destruction of the Church of England under a pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the likeliest Means to bring it Popery in Here he supposeth if I understand what he saith that the Protestant Dissenters aim at the destruction of the Church of England or at least that Non-conformity tendeth to destroy it than which no imagination can be more groundless nor can I conceive what should give cause to such a thought unless it be an extravagant Idea that some men frame to themselves of the Church of England as if her Essence consisted in the Ceremonies and the removing of these were the destruction of the Church We who Dissent from that which they call the Church of England are far from such low and dishonourable thoughts of Her we look on her as a Reformed part of the Church of God professing the Protestant Religion in opposition to the Errours of Popery but mixing this True Religion with some humane Ceremonies and therefore we think that opposing of these Ceremonies is so far from tending to the Destruction of the Church that it conduceth much to reforming of Her But suppose the Ceremonies were good and lawful things it is still a strange Notion and inconsistent with the Sentiments concerning them that our Brethren do profess that they are indifferent things and of no necessity If they be so what hazard is there of the destruction of the Church from their being laid aside If the Non-conformists had their wish it would inferr no other Alteration in the Church but the removal of such Accidents which the A betters of them do say That possunt adesse vel abesse sine subjecti interitu such Incoherences would not have been expected from so Learned a Pen. Sect. 5. It is also unfairly to say no worse hinted That Non-conformists Zeal against Popery is but pretended and that the real Design is to destroy the Church of England we can clear our selves of both before a higher Bar and therefore lay little weight on such Suggestions neither do we meerly dislike the Ceremonies because they are Popish he knoweth that we have other Arguments against them I hope Non-conformists shew their Zeal against Popery in other things Nor do we desire the Destruction of the Church that these Ceremonies may fall to the Ground but the removing of the Ceremonies that the Church may be more acceptable to him who can make her stand in despight of the Gates of Hell. If he charge us with the Church's Ruin because our Divisions about the Ceremonies may tend to it For answer Let it be considered who giveth culpably the Rise to these Divisions Whether they who forbear the Ceremonies because Sinful or they who do violently impose them tho' Indifferent in their Apprehension But this will afterwards fall to be further discoursed I deny not that Papists design the Ruin of the Church of England but not as Ceremonious but as Protestant they do not design to destroy Her by removing what the Non-conformists scruple but by taking away what they agree with Her in And therefore there is no Cause to think that the removing of the Ceremonies which Non-conformists desire though under a pretence of Zeal against Popery or under whatever other pretence should be one of the likeliest means to bring it in which our Author feareth Sect. 6. The Learned Dr. hath caught this Notion That Non-conformists by their Zeal against Popery are like to be Instruments of bringing it in and he seemeth to be very fond of this fine Conceit runneth away with it at a great rate is confirmed in it from the proceedings of Papists p. 2. starteth a Paradox p. 3. As it seemeth to unthinking People like the Non-conformists that when Papists 〈◊〉 appear no longer in that Work others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry it on for them and these unthinking people are carried away with meer no se and pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most passion and with least understanding against is and more to this purpose One may think it little Glory for the highly Learned Dr. Stillingfleet to labour in refuting such a contemptible Adversary as he here representeth But their Wisdom and Learning and Reasons for what they hold will I hope find more Equitable and less Supercilious Judges in the world neither will Hectoring stop their Mouths though they are ready to be silent to plain
either so undervalue Conscience or reflect on the worthy Persons that answered his Sermon If we cannot shew plain and evident Reasons for what we say as he requireth we refuse not causa cadere Sect. 31. He telleth a very formal Story p. 51 52. of the Effects of his Sermon of the mimick Gestures of the Non-conformists when it was spoken of the Truth of which History tho' I doubt I cannot disprove It neither was worth his writing nor my confuting He thinketh it lay at bottom of many mens Stomachs that he did not perswade the Church of England to the Dissenters Who did ever require that We pretend to no Authority over Her if she would have condescended to us for Peace sake which that Party talk so much of to forbear imposing her unnecessary things which we judge unlawful that should have satisfied us But he thinks p. 53. it had been unseasonable to speak of Alteration of Laws before Magistrates who are tied to the Laws that such Alteration is one of the weightiest things Ans. Supposing as he there saith his private Opinion for Abatements there was no need of proposing the Alteration of Established Laws but the exposing of them that were under the lash of Inconvenient Laws may well be forborn before the Executors of these Laws by a man that thinketh that Abatement should be made of the rigour of these Laws I do not think as he doth that the alteration of every Established Law is a Matter of such weight as any thing that can be taken into consideration provided the consideration about it be by such as have Power to alter it What is more common than altering of Laws when they are found inconvenient Our first Reformers thought not so under Edward 6. The Liturgy and the Law for it was altered when excepted against by Mr. Calvin abroad and some Zealots so the Historian speaks at home Full. Chur. Hist. 6 7. p. 386. Why may not this be done now when Dissatisâ—action is become more universal But it is a supposition that I can give no account of that the Laws against Non-conformity for of these his Discourse must be understood if it be at all to the purpose should be so looked on as that they concern the preservation of the Church and Religion That Church and Religion must stand on a tottering Foundation that cannot be preserved if those things be laid aside which are acknowledged to be indifferent But thus it is to dote on Mens Inventions it is ordinary to equal if not preferr them to Christ's Institution Mark 7. 13. Mat. 15. 6. Qui amat ranam ranam putat esse Dianam Sect. 32. But the Dr. is not content not to advise the altering of these Laws where it had not been very pertinent to propose it but he bringeth Reasons able as he thinketh to preponderate all the Considerations that any might use for changing them these Reasons are in number Six the 1. is The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters Must therefore none be satisfied because all cannot Some will be satisfied if you will but forbear imposing what God hath not commanded Others will not be satisfied unless you forbear also some of Christ's Institutions such as Infant Baptism is it reason to neglect the doing the one of these for Peace and Unity because you cannot do the other The 2. is The Vncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations If any man look on this as uncertain it must be either because he knoweth not what we scruple at or because he thinketh us resolved to dissent without reason when the reason of our Dissent is removed but I hope the Dr. is neither so ignorant nor so uncharitable He may be well assured that by relaxing the Imposition of humane Ceremonies all the Presbyterians shall be gained to join in worshipping of God with the present Church and I hope he will not say that they are no considerable number in England His 3. Reason is The difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church considering the ungovernableness of some mens Tempers and Principles Answ. If the Discipline that Christ hath instituted be duly exercised in the Church that will either make men governable yea actually govern them or it will exclude them out of the Church and so Factions shall cease in the Church But it is a strange piece of Ecclesiastical Policy on supposition that some will prove ungovernable to obtain the making of Civil Laws for imposing those things on mens Consciences which the Imposers count need nots and they on whom they are imposed know them to be unlawful This is the way to make them ungovernable in reference to these particular Impositions who would tamely submit to any Yoke that is not contrary to that of Christ. But it seems the Dr. looketh on all that scruple at human Ceremonies as ungovernable Persons And we rationally think that his Party are resolved that we shall either be governed by their Will not by the Word of God or they will take the most effectual ways that they can to keep us out of their Church I confess Conscience is an ungovernable thing except by the Laws of Christ but it is much the Strain of some of his Party I am confident the Reverend Dr. doth not mean so ill to ridicule and cry down Conscience in private persons that they may be governed by the publick Conscience a Soloecism in Divinity never heard of before i.e. The Will of the Superiours the thing to wit Blind Obedience is an old Popish Tool to enslave Consciences but such an express affronting of Conscience God's Deputy in the Soul is a new Invention that this Age is honoured with Sect. 33. His 4. Reason is The danger of breaking all in pieces by a Toleration Ans. Toleration is both commanded in Scripture Rom. 14. 1. Eph. 4. 2 3. In this last place it is joined with endeavouring after Unity so far is it from being the way to break all in pieces as the Dr. thinketh It is also condemned Rev. 2. 2 20. wherefore it should not have been so generally censured as a Church-ruining thing Beside Toleration is not that which we plead for in the first place but that the things that grieve our Consciences may be removed that so we may join with you in worshipping God in his own way that we may need no Toleration but if that cannot be obtained our next desire is that we may be suffered to worship God in that way that is acceptable to him by our selves when we cannot do it with you neither is it a vast and universal Toleration of all Blasphenius Heresies and Vnpeaceableness that we contend for but a forbearing of such as live peaceable in their Dissent from you in the smaller Concerns of Religion This Toleration would break nothing in pieces but the denying of it tendeth to break all in pieces For while Men have the use of their Conscience they will Dissent and serve God in the way that they
apprehend pleaseth him without mens leave when they cannot do it with their leave It is a great mistake to think that Unity among Christians lieth only or mainly in Vniformity and not rather in Consent in the main points of Religion and loving forbearance in reference to the rest Sect. 34. The 5. is The exposing our selves to the Papists and others by receding too far from the first principles and frame of our Reformation This is plain enough yet without wronging the scope or sence it might have been thus expressed more openly We are ashamed to mend lâ—st Men should think that we once were wrong This Reason if it prove any thing will conclude against all Reformations Might it not have been pleaded against the abolishing the high places in Solomon's Azariah's and Josiah's time of which before This will expose us to Baal Worshippers as too far receding from the first Principles of our Reformation Might not the same have been in K. Edward 6's time and in Q. Elizabeth's time in the one of which somewhat was mended that was defective in the Reformation by Hen. 8. And in the other Praying for the Dead and some other things were laid aside that had been under Edw. 6. It is beyond my capacity to understand how this could expose you to the Papists or any other what could they say but that some of their Superstitions were at first over-lookt which now you see the Evil of and think fit to remove them What advantage could they make of all this against the Church of England It will be hard to convince those of mistake who think that cleaving to these Ceremonies doth more expose the Church to the Papists and give them hope of their thinking at last of returning to them when they see how loath they are to go too far from them This Principle seemeth to make what we have done or the first Frame of the Reformation the Rule of the Reformation rather than the Word of God Neither can the laying aside of humane Ceremonies be rationally esteemed a receding very far from the Frame and first Principles of the Reformation seeing they are of so inconsiderable moment and next to nothing compared with the weighty points of Truth that we gained by the Reformation It is known to them who have lookt into the History of the Council of Trent that this very principle put an effectual Bar to all Reformation in the Papacy that was so much desired and stickled for by some His sixth Reason is The difficulty of keeping out priests pretending to be allowed Dissenters This reason is near of Kin to that which papists use against Peoples reading Scripture The difficulty of keeping men from catching Heresy by it If the Dr. here suppose the Dissenters to be well affected to the Priests and willing to have their Company or so unskilful that they cannot discern a Priest's Droctrine from that of a Protestant or to admit Ministers among them to the Discharge of that office without Trial and Testimonials Or if he suppose that when men are allowed by Law to Worship God without Ceremonies that the Law is so laid asleep that men may do what they list If I say all these things be supposed this Reason may seem to have some weight but without such a supposition it is lighter than Chaff and unworthy of the Pen of the learned Dr. Stillingfleet Sect. 35. I perceive the Dr. cannot get that fancy out of his Head That the strength and union of the National Setlement dependeth on continuing of the present Impositions and that they are necessary to keep out Popery Enough hath been already said to lay open the fondness of this Imagination and its inconsistency with what Sentiments about the Ceremonies themselves do on other occasions declare when it serveth a turn After some indecent contempt of Mr. A. in reference to what he had said of the Dr's Sermon he distinguisheth p. 55. between Lay-Communion and Ministerial Conformity that he meddleth with the former not the latter his reason is If the People thought themselves bound to do what is their Duty towards Communion with the Church many Ministers would change their Mind I contract but not misrepresent what he saith To this I return two things 1. Why Ministerial Conformity should not be taken into consideration in such a Discourse is not easily understood But that we may see the Dr. hath a mind not only to make a distinction but a difference between Non-conformist Ministers and their People according to the Maxime Divide impera If all the People might lawfully conform and the Ministers also could submit to what he calleth Lay-Communion is no regard to he had to the many Hundreds not to say Thousands of ministers many of them Eminent and most if not all of them compleatly fitted for the Work of the Gospel and who have God's and His Church's Call to that Work Is there no Consideration to be used by the Church how the Labours of all these may not be lost while the Harvest is great and the Labourers few unless it be thought that the Case is not so now and Shall they all be rendered useless rather than the imposing of Subscription and Assent to what is confessedly not instituted before born Doth this savour of that Regard to Souls and of that love of Peace and Unity that our Brethren make such a noise with when it suiteth their purpose Tho' they think us no Ministers for want of Episcopal Ordination yet we cannot think so of our selves and that one Principle sheweth them the greatest Schismaticks that are among Protestants for by it they unchurch most if not all the Reformed Churches and unminister all their Pastours and nullifie Baptism and all the other Ordinances that are among them Sect. 36. The other thing that I reply to this distinction of the Dr's is That we have such rational and well-grounded Scruples even against Lay-Communion that is joining in their Service and the use of the Ceremonies that nothing that we yet have seen is able to remove as I hope the Progress of this Debate shall make appear He alledgeth p. 6. that The scruple of the Surplice is worn out kneeling at the Sacrament is generally allowed by the more moderate Non-conformists For the sign of the Cross Mr. Baxter saith The sin if it be one in using it is not the Persons who bring the Child to be baptized but the Ministers and that he also debateth for the use of the Liturgy To all this I answer We have the same Scruple against the Surplice we had of old but do not for it withdraw it being the Minister's fault not Ours For Kneeling it is our own act and therefore we must either be dispensed with in it which the Church will not do or for bear the Sacrament in which it is for we utterly deny that the more Judicious of the Non-conformists do allow it neither do I see how they can and disallow other Ceremonies
and Pious and Learned Sr. Matthew Hales in his Book of Schism hath this passage In times of manifest Corruptions and Persecutions where Religious Assembling is dangerous private meetings howsoever beside publick Order are not only Lawful but they are of necessity and Duty All pious Assemblies in times of persecution and Corruption however practised are indeed or rather alone the Lawful congregations and publick Assemblies though according to form of Law are indeed nothing but Riots and Conventicles if they be stained with Corruption and Superstition Sest 40. He answereth an Objection pag. 77. That the Publishing of this Book is now unseasonable being a hindrance to the Vnion of Protestants to which there seemeth now to be a general Inclination He Alledgeth p. 78. that the principles of Non-conformists hinder that Vnion and lay a foundation for perpetual Divisions He knoweth that we will not own this and therefore proveth it as he thinketh On the principles laid down by some of the Dissenting Brethren Let the constitution be never so easie to themselves others may make use of their grounds and carry on the Difference as high as ever I wish he had told us what these grounds are But it is an Odd kind of Reasoning we will not endeavour Union with them who may be Tollerated because they who are not to be Tolerated will expect the same favour The ground on which we plead for forbearance is our Scruple about what you confess to be no Institution of Christ nor necessary duty we in our Conscience judge it unlawful and can shew good reason for our so judging How this ground can be Improved by any body to heighten Differences unless it be by the peremptoriness of them that will Impose such Things I do not understand He professeth to be for Vnion that will lessen differences and not weaken but strengthen the Protestant Religion Now let any judge whether the Union that is founded on the ground proposed be not such Sect. 41. He saith p. 97. That Vniversal Liberty differeth from Vnion as loosing from binding and it is strange if that which Papists lately thought the best Means to bring in Popery should now be lookt on as the most effectual way to keep it out Ans. We do not nor ever did plead for Vniversal Liberty which was that which no doubt Papists aimed at ergo nihil dictum But suppose saith he the Indulgence be at present strictly limitted to Dissenting Protestants we are not sure it will always continue so Will not the same Reasons as to Scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. be extended further when occasion serveth and Popery getteth footing on the Dissenters Grounds Ans. Were it not as rational for us to say Tho' we can now join with the Church of England in her present Ceremonies what know we how soon on the same grounds she may bring in all those of Popery Let us forbear evil surmising and mind our present Duty especially seeing the way to prevent this feared Evil is obvious to wit that no Indulgence be granted after but what there is as good Reason for and as little hazard from as is at present Neither do we plead for Indulgence meerly on the grounds of Sâ—ruple of Conscience or Suffering for Religion but on other grounds in conjunction with these as hath been a little above expressed It is like our Grounds may be comprehended in his wide-Bellied c. but if by it he means all grounds of Forbearance now may be extended to plead for an undue Toleration then all Forbearance of Christians that dissent in any thing must be unlawful which is contrary to the Scripture formerly mentioned and to the general Sentiments of all Christians except Papists whose Religion standeth by Blood and Cruelty Sect. 42. Where saith he hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater Harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Witness the state of the Northern Kingdoms compared with the number of Papists in the united Netherlands I can soon tell him where to wit under Episcopal Persecution of Protestants in Britain If this be a mistake these Nations have been for some Years in a Dream Again his Instance is wide from the purpose for we plead not for a Toleration of all sects and particularly not of Papists what Toleration is in the Netherlands themselves can best give account of He asserteth it impossible to keep out Popery where Toleration is allowed and I assert it as impossible to keep in Christianity in an impure Church where it is not allowed and yet there is no inconsistency between the two Assertions if we distinguish between a Limited Toleration which we plead for and one Vnlimited which he all along speaketh of To talk of Toleration thus without distinction is to walk in the Clouds and not descend to the thing in debate which is unbeseeming a Disputant Sect. 43. He bringeth Three Arguments p. 79 80. to prove his Assertion 1. Because of the various waies of creeping in under several Disguises which the Priests and Jesuits have and can never be prevented where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters and an unaccountable Church-power is allowed to separate Congregations Ans. 1. This Argument Supponit falsum which we have often disclaimed to wit That we plead for a general Indulgence to Dissenters we desire it may be limitted to men of peaceable Principles and Practices to such as differ from the publick way in matters not Fundamental nor near to the Foundation and for our part who are Presbyterians we seek forbearance only in things that are acknowledged to be none of Christ's Institutions and in things that are neither against Godliness nor the Peace of Church or State. Another Falshood that he supposeth is That we plead for an unaccountable Church-power in Separatâ— Meetings We plead for no Power in them but what a good account can be given of from Scripture and what is allowed commonly to a Church as such 2. I mention'd before a way of preventing the creeping in of Priests and Jesuits for all their Cunning to wit The due Exercise of Church-Discipline in all the ways that shall be tolerated especially in the admission of Ministers to their Office and if these Foxes creep in at undiscerned cranies if Discipline be in vigour they may be cast out again before they can do any considerable harm to the Flock Sect. 44. Argument 2. Because it will be great hardship when mens heats are over for them the Papists only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest of Phanaticks are allowed it Answ. 1. Still the old Supposition must found all his Arguments We plead for no Toleration to any Phanaticks properly so called much less to the wildest of them 2. There are many weighty Reasons why Papists should be denied that Liberty that is allowed to Protestant Dissenters from the Grossness of their Heresies the Idolatry of their Worship the Unpeaceableness of their Principles such
to Infallibility Were it not easie to name many more men of all these excellent qualities who have had their Navi The laying such weight on men hath been an useful tool to build up Antichristian Babel bâ— taking People off from eyeing Scripture Authority in the matters of Christ and putting that of Men in its room Doth the Dr. thing it strange that a dissenting Artifiâ—er a term suited to that Contempt of Non-conformists that his Book is full of should be in the right when one more Holy and Learned than he is in the wrong especially in things of that moment that the Ceremonies are of For I look on it as taunting not disputing to talk of the mighty importance of the Ceremonies to the Souls of Men the Beams of Vnlawfulness in them of which a Mote could not be seen by the Reformers we count them of such Importance as a tender Conscience ought to refuse them and yet not of such mighty Importance as many other things are We see a Mâ—te not Beams of unlawfulness in them whatever our Ancestors thought of them Neither is this because of a dark and Jewish Dispensation that they were under while all the clear Gospel-Light of Division and Separation is reserved for our Times as the Author pleasantly dreams that we think they were not so favoured with a general Sun-shine of Light as we are Popish Darkness being then but going away But for the Light of Division and Separation we look on it as gross Darkness and leave it to our imposing Brethren who cause the Division Neither was it the Reformer's want of Zeal for Religion but want of Light and Zeal against Ceremonies that caused their different Practice from â—urs they Burnt for the former not for the latter Neither is it strange that they should have no suspicion of the unlawfulness of these things when they went to suffer seeing these things never were controverted between them their Persecutors Was it never heard of that true Martyrs had Mistakes that were extrinsick to that on which their Sufferings were stâ—ted What he citeth out of Jacob the Non-conformist against Johnson the Separatist p. 7. doth not touch our Case for the Separatistâ— that then were went on other Grounds than we do of which after and if Mr. Jacob used some Arguments that were ill grounded lâ—t him answer for it Sect. 13. As to the Historical Account that he giveth Sect. 3. of the English Exiles in Queen Mary's Reign at Frankford and elsewhere I shall not controvert it only I shall make a few Animadversions on it having first in general noted That it is no wonder nor is it argumentative against us who take Scripture not Mens Opinions for our Rule that they who in England were inured to that less-pure way of Worship did cleave to it abroad till by seeing and learning away more consonant to Scripture they fell in with that And it is as little to be wondred at that some gave more pliable Ears to the right way that they were instructed in in strange places and others clave more obstinately to that they had been bred with we know what a prejudice Education causeth and heâ—câ— arose those Contests that he mentioneth If he could prove as he cannot that all the Non-conformity that is in England was brought from beyond Sea he saith nothing unless he also prove that it was not brought out of the Scripture We must not reject every thing in Religion that is not of English Original lest we by so doing throw off both Christianity and Protestantism Sâ—ct 10. In particular I first take notice of what he saith p. 8. These English Exiles with the People in all other places Geneva excepted kept to the Orders established in our Church Here is a notable Falshood to wit That all the Exiles kept to the Orders of the Church of England himself excepteth those at Frankford and Mr. Fuller above-cited telleth us of a Party of Non-conformists before that time in England headed by Rogers and Hooper no doubt some of them fled from the Marian Persecution and it is not probable they would use the Ceremonies that here grieved them when they were under no Law to â—ompel them Another thing that I take notice of is He challengeth Mr. Baxter for saying That at Frankford the Contest was between them who were for the English Liturgy and them who were for a more free way of Praying but I see not how this is disproved by him the Confirmation of it may be rather gathered from the Accompt he giveth of these Debates p. 9. to wit that when the Magistrates first required them not to dissent from the French in Doctrine or Ceremonies and then took off that restraint Yet they altered the English order and brought it nearer to the French Model which we know doth not impose a Liturgy nor restrain free Prayer but at most proposeth a Directory wherein are some set Forms as helps to them that need them To say that those who laid aside the Responses Litany and Surplice â—â—d many other things were still for the English Liturgy is to speak at random But he omitteth a material passage because it maketh against him with which Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 8. p. 27. supplieth us out of the same History that the Dr. citeth to wit The Troubles at Frankford That they laid aside the Liturgy Surplice and other Ceremonies in Service and Sacraments both as superfluous and superstitious wherein then did they differ from Non-conformists Sect. 14. He saith p. 9. That the Question among them was not Whether a Liturgy or not but whether the Order of Divine Service was not to be accommodated as much as might be to the French. This is to confess that they did not contend for the English Liturgy as he telleth us some others did who were dissatisfied with their deserting of it But I further Assert That the Controversy was between a Liturgy and Directory to wit between the way of England and that of the French Protestants who have no Liturgy but as other Protestant Churches had an order of publick worship for directing unqualified Ministers such many behoved to be in the beginning of Reformation from Popery to the set Forms in which they were not tied whom the Lord had competently gifted for the Work of the Ministry So as in the best Reformed Churches these Directories were by Degrees disused as Crutches are by a Lame Man as he recovereth the use of his Limbs p. 10. He telleth us of some resolute Conformists at Zurick and Strasburg who were earnest with the Non-conformists at Frankford We deny not that there were such among them who suffered for Protestantism What those of Frankford say p. 10. of not defacing King Edward 's Laws must be understood of Laws for the Protestant Religion not of those for Ceremonies otherwise it had been protestatio contraria facto and p. 11. Their not dissenting from their Brethren wholly at the ransom of their Lives for
this Doctrine must needs have the same interpretion if we will reconcile them to themselves And their extenuating as much as might be the Alterations they had made sheweth them to be peaceable Men that shun Offence if possible but doth not prove them to be for the English Liturgy yea or for any Liturgy Sect. 15. He speaketh p. 11. of Knox and Whittingham finding their the Exiles at Frankfora's Zeal for the English Liturgy desired Calvin's judgment of it I find no such Zeal at Frankford for the English Liturgy but the Dr. will have it so in despite of History that telleth us of their laying aside its Ceremonies as Superfluous and Superstitious of which before It was not those of Frankford but of Sâ—rasburg whose Zeal for the Liturgy if it may be so called for they desire but the Substance of it to be retained quittiâ—g the Ceremonies and things which the Country could bear occasioned the calling for Calvin's Judgment Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 8. s. 3. p. 29 30. out of Troubles of Frankford p. 24. In giving Accompt of Calvin's Answer to their Desire he representeth Calvin as byassed and selfish being throughly heated in a cause that so nearly concerned him It had been fairer to have refuted his opinion than to judge his Thoughts and Motives He saith also that what Calvin thought most unfit yet he thought tolerable Calvin saith not so pace tua dixerim he saith There were in it multae tolerabiles ineptiae not that all things in it were such Any that know Calvin's Principles will say that he thought some things in it no ineptiae and other things not tolerabiles And what he saith of the Tolerableness of these fooleries is no more but that they might be born with for a time because they could not be corrected primo statim die He doth then not count them tolerable for he approveth them that appeared against them tho he Condemneth the most unseasonable contest that was in that Church neque tamen saith he eorum Constantiam reprâ—hendo qui ut pro justa causa depugnent in vilem contentionem trahuntur He speaketh of these things as not to have been tolerated even in England after the Progress of the Reformation Si hactenus in Anglia viguisset sincera religio aliquod in melius correctum multaque detracta esse oportuit Much more to this purpose is in that Epist. which is mihi 200 cited by the Dr. for 164. It is true he speaketh of his easiness to yield in indifferent things such as are External Rites This must be understood of Rites common to Religion and others not of sacred Ceremonies or if of those it is for a Time of urgent necessity not always that they may be Tolerated That Calvin gave no incouragement to Separation if the Ceremonies were continued is said gratis and in defiance of his own Words while he commendeth them who stood up against them and the Sequel proved that Calvin was so understood by them who regarded his judgment for Fuller p. 31 32. giveth us the Story of their hard usage by the other party and of their departure from them being Headed by Whittingham after Knox's removal and setteth down the Names of them who separated themselves from the Congregation of Frankford Sect. 16. He denieth p. 12. That Calvin was in his Judgment for free Prayer because in his Ep. 55. mihi 87. to the Protector of England he approveth a certain form and giveth Reasons for it It is evident that Calvin giveth this Advice for the necessity of the Church that then was Popery being then scarce well removed and there being few Pastors tolerably gifted for their work and some who Laboured to sow the Seeds of Errors in Christs newly dressed Fields whom he calleth cerebrosos homines I suppose he meaneth the Anabaptists That Calvin designed no more by this is manifest both because at Geneva and other Churches that owned Calvin's Doctrine Prayer was not restrained by an imposed Liturgy but mens infirmity relieved by some forms also because Calvin in the same Letter to the Protector adviseth that all the abuses brought into Popery should be removed and that by bringing back things to Christ's Institution as the Apost doth 1 Cor. 11. 23. Inde saith he colligendâ— generalis Doctrina tum de legitima reformatione quae Deo accepta sit igitur ad ipsum purum dei verbum redeundum nobis esse etenim supererunt mixturae ex hominum ingenio prolatae totidem extabunt polutiones quae homines distrahant a recto eorum usu quae Dominus in ipsorum salutem instituerat and much more to that purpose No Non-conformists will desire a further Reformation than Calvin there adviseth to however he was forbearing with some things for the present necessity as good men then generally were He telleth us that the Ceremonies making no exception of the few that were retained were lenocinia quae miseras animas ad malum perducerent That no Admonition against the abuse of them will hinder men to be hardened by them He confesseth that Ceremonies should be Accommodated to the Peoples Capacity but we must beware least under that pretext any thing be left that proceedeth from Satan or Antichirst and compareth such a way of reforming to leaving of the High Places untaken away He blameth leaving of some things unreformed to 〈◊〉 the Dâ—ssâ—tisfaction of some and saith that in our own Matters such yielding is allowable not in Gods matters and that God will be with us if we keep his way whatever Men think or act against us Who ever without prejudice readeth that excellent Ep. will not look on Calvin as a Favourer of either the English Liturgy or Humane Ceremonies Sect. 17. He doth very unduly represent Calvin's Judgment expressed in his Ep. to Cox and his Brethren 165 mihi 206. He there mentioneth nothing mis-represented to him save that Cox and his Party had precisely urged the English Ceremonies and that they would remit nothing of them But now by their Letter he perceived that they had shewed themselves magis humanos tractabiles Here indeed are different Representations but not of the State of the Controversie or things controverted Which of them was truest we shall see a little after It is false to say That he expresseth himself satisfied that the matter was so composed among them his Words are Totum negotium placide fuisse compositum gaudeo he was pleased with their peace not with their decision And that this was falsly by Cox and the rest represented to Calvin will appear when I shall shew that their Debate made a very unpeaceable end Calvin doth not mention Lights to be an Excuse for his Letter but Them and Crosses he mentioneth as superstitious usages to be abolished Neither needed he a miserable shift to excuse any thing that he had written His first Letter on Knox and Whittingham's Information advising the abolishing of the Ceremonies his second on Cox's Information applauding
the World judge We are content to set aside all the Authority of men Ancient and Modern and to referr our debate simply to the Determination of Scripture But mens Authority is the Argument that the Dr. in this Book doth most insist upon I hope the Reader may by this time perceive whether the Dr. doth truly or faIsly Assign the Foundation of our Differences which I with him acknowledge to be unhappy Sect. 21. He saith p. 14. That in the English Reformation they proceeded more out of reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rule Here are two mistakes not to be passed in silence 1. The Ancientest Church had none of the Ceremonies they were neither in the Apostolick Church nor in that which was near it How ancient they were he will after give occasion to enquire So that England took for their pattern the Church that was much declined both in Antiquity and Purety 2. What can be more grosly false than to say that other Reformers made meer opposition to Popery with their rules Two things make the contrary evident 1. They did not reject all that Papists held as That there is one God c. 2. They rejected nothing of Popery but what they gave other reasons for than that the Papists held it to wit That it was contrary to Scripture or not instituted by Christ and so condemned in Scripture as vain Worship being a Teaching for Doctrines the Commandments of men We make Symbolizing with Papists or other Idolaters an Argument against the Ceremonies but we reject them not on that account only and so meer opposition to Popery is not the rule of our Reformation Sect. 22. He complaineth that Calvin and others did insinuate that the English Reformation was Imperfect Nay they openly mainâ—ained it and so do we He doth twice mis-represent Calvin's Words p. 14 15. That he had avowed in the Letter before-cited to the Protector That the best Rule of Reformation is to go as far from Popery as they could No such Words are to be found in that Letter nor any thing that will import so much He doth indeed press the removing of all Popish Ceremonies as having been abused to Idolatry and citeth Psal. 16. 4. Where David saith That he will not take up the names of idols in his mouthâ— but he neither maketh this the Rule nor the best Rule of Reformation He knew that Scripture and Institution which he had a little before-mentioned was the Rule and a far better Rule than that Tho' even that hath its use to direct us in Reformation of the Church Again he saith That Calvin yieldeth to this Moderation that such Ceremonies might be retained as were easie and fitted to the Capacity of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist His words are Adeoque Ceremonias ipsas ad usum captum esse accommodandas sed non minus constanter affirmo Videndum esse ne sub illo praetextu toleratur quicquam quod a Satana vel Antichristo profectum sit Here is no advice to retain any Humane Ceremonies but all of that sort fall under that Censure they being not from God and being Parts of Worship they are from Satan or Antichrist but he would have all the Externals of Worship so fitted to peoples capacity as that they do not hinder but rather help in the inward exercise of it And if Calvin did yield in that Infancy of the Reformation which I think he did not otherwise he could not blame the Imperfection of it That the Ceremonies might be retained it maketh nothing for perpetuating of them The Dr. saith They proceeded by this Rule of Moderation taking away all the Ceremonies that were of late Invention And he saith p. 14. That the Ceremonies retained were more ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church It had been fit to have removed all that were of Humane Invention for Antiquity can neither prejudice Christ's Instituâ—ions nor warrant Mens But it is not true that all the Ceremonies retained were so ancient as shall be made appear in due time 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 of Kneelling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper Neither will it free our Ceremonies from being Popish that they were before the great Apostasy if it be made appear that they were with a considerable degree of the Apostasy yea and a part of it Sect. 23. He endeavoureth to free our Ceremonies from Popery because the Cross is used by Papists in the Scrutinies before Baptism we use it after Baptism and Kneeling is not strictly required by the Roman Church in the act of Receiving as appeareth by the Pope's sitting or a little leaning For the first What great difference doth it make whether Crossing be used before or after Baptism seeing it is not to be omitted but belongeth to that Sacrament as one of its Adjuncts Our quarrel with it is not that it is used after Baptism but that it is used being none of Christ's Institutions but of Man's Invention and abused in the Popish Administration of Baptism For the Second I hope he will not deny that Kneeling in the act of Receiving is the constant Practice and required among the Papists and That the Pope who to them is above the Laws of God should be exempted from the Laws of their Church is so insignificant an Argument against Kneeling being required by them that I wonder to see it used by so Learned a man. For his Plain Linen Garment only used instead of many of the Popish Vâ—stments which was used in the time of Jerom and Austin I deny that it is the only Vestment that they use as appropriated to Religion and religious Persons any who readâ—th the Book of Canons made Anno 1603. Can. 74. may see the contrary the Reverend Clergy there busying themselves to order the fashion of Cloaths that all of them should use But that the Surplice is as ancient as Hierom and Augustin I shall not now examine seeing it is too well known that many Abuses were crept into the Church sooner than their days the one flourishing in the end of the Fourth Century the other in the Fifth I see no cause why any man should stand amazed at the noise that is made against the mischief of these Impositions as he saith p. 16. seeing all that he hath said doâ—h not clear them from being Men's Devices in God's Worship and consequently vain Worship which is a burden to any Conscience that regardeth Christ's Authority more than that of Men. Sect. 24. He pretendeth Sect. 5. to give Reasons why the Ceremonies were retained by our Reformers tho' they were distasteful to some Protestants and like to prove the Occasions of future Contentions These Reasons are three 1. Out of a due reverence to Antiquity 2. To justifie the Reformation before Enemies in that we would not break with them for meer indifferent things 3. To
be evil and to have had its Rise in the decay of the Church let us bear the blame He saith the rejecting of the Ceremonies gave a great check to the Reformation in France and citeth for it Thuanus and Balduinus both Papists without pointing to their words or places where they may be found wherefore I look on what he saith as gratis dictum And if it were true it saith no more but that there were two in France that were fond of humane Ceremonies as there are many in England VVe have cause to bless the Lord that the Reformation in France was not checked but made very glorious Progress was owned by many great and small was sealed with the Blood of many Martyrs And that it was not universally received we may rationally impute to the supreme Power being against it which useth to have the Command of the Consciences of the greatest and carnal part of the world But what the Dr. saith in prosecuting this reason I wish he would reconcile with his Third Reason That England retained the Ceremonies to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches Sect. 27. His Second Reason is to manifest the Justice of the Reformation by letting Enemies see that we did not break Communion with them for meer indifferent things Ans. 1. Papists might have seen that if they would have opened their Eyes without our retaining any of their Ceremonies to wit That we brake with them on weighty points of Heresie and Idolatry and not for Ceremonies alone Ans. 2. When we had separated from their Church on such weighty Accounts we were not to retain any thing that they had corrupted the Worship of God by to please them neither could we retain those to shun breaking with them having already broken with them on other accounts Ans. 3. The Dr. taketh it for granted which is the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Question between him and us to wit That the Ceremonies are meer indifferent things If he prove this he must carry the day What Advantage the Popish Bishops for all their Subtilty and Learning that he talketh of could have made of rejecting of these as well as the rest of humane Ceremonies I know not they had a large Field to expatiate in with the People by holding forth to them How many Usages of the ancient Church the Reformers had rejected that were in the Dr's sence meer indifferent things as Holy Water Cream Salt Spittle c. How little addition could the rejecting the Cross Surplice c. with the rest have made to their strength What he citeth out of P. Martyr is abundantly answered Sect. 10. for he speaketh not of Vestments used in but out of Worship about which he would not have such Contentions made at such a time but have them removed afterward The Dr. citeth his words Indefinitely Other Reformed Churches but the Author's words are Per multas Ecclesias nâ—n ab evangelio alienas I suppose he meaneth the Lutheran or rathe Greek Churches for P. Martyr well knew That in the rest of the Reformed Churches no such Vestments were used Sect. 28. Let us now hear his Third Reason to shew their consent with other Protestant Churches and he instanceth in the Lutheran Church Ans. 1. This Reason could not be used by the English Reformers because they would surely rather have imitated the Calvinist Churches with whom they agreed in Doctrine than the Lutheran Churches from whom they differ'd in considerable points of Doctrine if they had designed to symbolize with other Churches and had been influenced in their determination of this matter by that design sure they would have symbolized with the soundest Churches Ans. 2. Neither could this Reason have had any weight if they had used it seeing there were mâ—re Protestant Churches of a contrary Practice and therefore the Protestant Churches would have carried the rejection of the Ceremonies whether the notes had been ponderanda or numeranda Ans. 3. If our Reformers had design'd a Consent in Ceremonies with the Lutheran Churches why did they retain these and not the rest used among them which are most of them as little liable to Exception as those retained and are not by their multitude such a burden as those of the Papists I hope the Dr. when he considereth better will retract this Argument for there is no Reformed Church on earth that the Church of England sheweth any Consent with in her Ceremonies Ans. 4. I have elsewhere shewed from good Authority That the Lutheran Churches at first had no humane Ceremonies but what they now have crept into those Churches afterward as other Evils did which Luther did not authorise Sect. 29. He will not only have Lutherans but the chief among the Calvinists to be of his Opinion He citeth Calv. Ep. ad Sadol That he was for restoring the Ancient Face of the Church His words which I found not easily in that long Ep. are Vt instauretur vetusta illa ecclesiae facies quae primo ab hominibus indoctis non optimis deformata foedata postea a pontifice Romano ejus factione flagitio se lacerata prope deleta est It is evident that he is not speaking of Ceremonies only but mainly of the Doctrine of the Church that was in Controversie between him and the Cardinal Also that it is the Apostolick Church that he speaketh of whose Face he acknowledgeth to have been deformed before Antichrist came to an height He citeth also Calvin de vera Eccles. Reformatione ch 16. which Book I find not in the Catalogue of Calvin's Works only among his Tractatus Theolog. I find a Supplex exhortatio to the Emperour and Diet at Spire De necessitate reformandae Ecclesiae which I have diligently lookt into and find no such Passage in it but much contending against Humane Ceremonies And he apologizeth for their casting them out by shewing Quod nihil vel primo digito attigimus nisiquod christus pro nihilo ducit cum frustra coli Deum humanis traditionibus pronunciat Wherefore if Calvin owne Symbolical Ceremonies as the Dr. alledgeth we must understand him of those of Divine Institution or charge him with Inconsistency with himself Oecolampadius saith he lookt on the Gesture in the Sacrament as indifferent so do we therefore we think Kneeling ought not to be imposed And when it is so imposed it loseth its Indifferency having a shew of Adoration of the Bread. I have not Bucer's Book and therefore say nothing to the citation out of him but that his Authority will not prove the Opinion of the Calvinist Churches that we debate about Sect. 31. Our Author after this Digression returneth to the Historical part of his discourse Sect. 6. He telleth us that in the beginning of Queâ—n Eliz. Reign the Exiles returned from abroad with secret dislike of the Ceremonies but the Act of Conformity being passed and the Vse of the Liturgy strictly enjoined there was no Separation some of them accepted of Preferment in
Preaching and Hearing when Men forbid us We should do it peaceably and inoffensively but do it notwithstanding For his Advice to the People I cannot approve it yet doth it not reach our Case for he adviseth to Conformity for the present with express mention of their Hope of a further Reformation which we are out of all hope that ever our Clergy will yield to In Beza's Resolution of a Case mentioned by the Dr. p. 23. I desiderate one cause of Separation from a Church to wit Imposing unlawful Terms of Communion unless either this be comprehended under the right use of the Sacraments that he mentioneth or such withdrawing be not properly a Separation but a being driven away Sect. 34. He saith this Advice of Beza's put an effectual stop to the Separation I find no such thing in History but rather the contrary The same opinion he citeth of Gaulter ep dedicat in homil ad 1. Ep. ad Corinth Zanchie ep lib. 2. p. 391. where Gualter complains of the Lyes and Prejudices against the Church of England I wish it have not been Lyes written by that party that made him write so and Zanchie is even for Ministerial Conformity It is an easie thing to gather Scraps and Sentences out of mens Writings that represent them as speaking what they never thought and nothing is more ordinary with this Author than to perswade himself at least to endeavour to perswade his Reader that all the World are of his opinion It is enough to us in this matter that the Reformed Divines beyond Seas did not use the Ceremonies but have condemned them and that on such Grounds as make them unlawful to be used to wit that they are Vain Worship Additions to the Word of God the Symbols of Popish Idolatry c. and if notwithstanding of all this any of them would perswade us to use them their Doctrine doth hinder us to obey their advice which we look on as an overlash of Charity to the then good Bishops of England who were Labouring to Reform the Church from Popery Sect. 35. He telleth us next Sect. 7. of a New Generation of fiercer Non-conformists the peaceable ones being worn out It is not unusual for Adversaries to represent true Zeal as fierceness but if there was undue forwardness among them we defend not the Faults of Men but the Truth of God which they owned There was a sinful fierceness among some of Christ's Disciples when they called for Fire from Heaven Luke 9. 54 55. but this was no Argument against their cause We with sad Hearts behold the scandalous Fierceness that is among some Antiprelaâ—ists at this day but must not change our Principles for that And was there then and is there now no fierceness on the otherside If we may judge of former days by the present we may rationally ascribe the fierceness of some of the Suffering Party to that of the persecuting Party as the Exciting cause for oppression maketh a Wise Man mad Eccles. 7. 7. for the Complaint that Mr. Fox maketh of them which he Citeth out of Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 9. p. 106. If the Circumstances be considered it will be found not to prove what the Dr. bringeth it for We must know then out of the same Author that the Complaint in this Letter was against some particular men in Magdalen College who were no Representatives of the Non-conformists that it was not occasioned by any of their Principles or Religious Practices but by a particular injury done by these men to Mr. Fox as he thought And Mr. Fox was as likely to be byassed in the matter in Controversie between him and these men he complained of as they were The Matter was his Son Samuel had left the College and gone beyond Sea without leave either of his Father or the College and at his return was suspected of Popery and for this he was by that party that Mr. Fox is so angry with expelled the College Beside all this any who readeth that Letter of Mr. Fox's may see a Strain and meet with Expressions very unbecoming Old Reverend and Good Mr. Fox who had always professed himself a Non-conformist tho he had more Latitude about the use of the Ceremonies than some others had Factiosa ista puritanuorm capita isti ter puri puritani and some other foul Reflections with the odious name that Enemies gave to that Party are very unsavory from such a Pen But Age and supposed Injury must bear the blame of the peevish strain that is too manifest throughout that whole Letter It were a hard case if the faults either real or supposed of some were always to be charged on all the Party The Dr's own Party would be black enough if they were thus dealt with and even the Historian no Friend to the Non-conformists calls this Letter such a Strain of Rhetorick as once Tully used pro Domo sua and imputeth the too much passion in it to the unjust Affront offered to him Sect. 36. Next the Dr. doth highly resent the Admonitions First and Second presented in the Name of the Non-conformists to the Parliament by Mr. Thomas Cartwright But I see not by what he citeth out of these Admonitions wherein the bitter Zeal of that Party appeared Neither that they despised the old Trifling Controversy about Garments and Ceremonies for these were still the Grounds of their Non-conformity tho they complained also of other Grievances Neither do I find that they said all was out of Course in the Church they owned the Protestant Religion but desired that the Reformation might be more through by laying aside some of the Remainders of Popish Superstitions formerly overlookt I wonder why the Dr. should startle so much at their complaining of the Liturgy Bishops and Arch-bishops the Way of câ—lling their Clergy the Ceremonies annexed to the Sacraments which are the Grievances by these Admonitions laid before the Parliament with an humble Petition for redressing of them Seeing he knoweth that these are the very things that our Controversie is Conversant about and tho' all these be not the Grounds of our withdrawing from their Worship yet all of them are such things as we are grieved with and desire a Reformation of That he calleth them bold and groundless Assertions is a more bold and groundless Assertion than any of them for he knoweth Grounds have been given which it were better to refute than rail at It is also strange that he saith That these Admonitions gave the true occasion to the following Practice of Separation when himself assigneth another Cause of it before this p. 18 19. and yet another that he dateth it from long after to wit the Indulgence Praef. p. 23. Sometimes he layeth it on the Jesuits Praef. p. 11. and indeed he knoweth not wheâ—e to lay it missing the true Cause which is Episcopal Rigour in their unscriptural Impositions on the one hand and Consciencious Obedience to the Word of God on the other That this Cause
Conformity from us that their Example cannot in reason be judged sufficient to oblige us even Apostolick Example in some cases is not declarative of what is our duty as it is in other cases Beside that the Clergy of England then were sound and orthodox and the Doctrine of the Pulpiâ—s and Press was fully consonant to the Doctrine of the Church contained in their confession of Faith the 39 Articles Now it is far otherwise with the greatest part I am far from charging all with this blame who knoweth not how frequent yea almost universal Arminian Doctrine is How some of them preach and print Socinianism and without a check from the Church and How many Popish Doctrines are either maintained or extenuated by some is too well known by them who converse in England In the Old Church of England pious men were cherished In This we know how not only Dissenters tho' never so sober and religious are persecuted to their utter undoing But men of their own way who are sober and serious are by the High-Church-men discountenanced and slighted under the nick-name of Whigs or Trimmers So that if we judge of the Church of England by her Confession of Faith and the Temper of her ancient Clergy the Presbyterians with a few of the Conformists do best deserve that Name But this tho' it be our great grievance and discouragement from Communion with the Church is none of our Grounds for withdrawing from her publick Administrations Sect. 4. I say then further as I did of the Church in King Edward 6's time That Church was a reforming Church even in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign they were about purging out of the old Leaven and therefore many good men who were dissatisfied with Humane Trash in the Church yet cleaved to publick Ordinances notwithstanding till a better Season should appear for purging it out tho' I think they did better who stood at a greater distance from these Relicks of Superstition But we are out of expectation of Reforming of these things What Attempts have been made by Arch-bishop Laud Bishop Cozens and others to re-introduce some of the ejected Ceremonies is not unknown and what superstitious Gestures and Practices are used by many without Approbation of Superiours which yet are not imposed but are at present a sort of candidate Ceremonies and stand in the place of the Competentes or Catechumeni waiting for a fit Season to be brought into necessary and universal observation none is ignorant who know any thing of English Affairs The Advances that the present Church of England hath made toward Popery not in these things only but in greater matters cannot be obscured by any thing that the Dr. hath said against the Book written to that purpose of which before If our Ancestors bare with these Fopperies when they had Hope to get them removed as other things of the same kind had been a little before it doth not follow that we should comply with them when we see them like to grow upon us yea when we see them made use of as an Engine to drive away the best Protestants that Popery may the more easily re-enter Sect. 5. Another Difference between our Case and that of Non-conformists in former times is We have been in full and quiet possession of the pure Ordinances of God without the mixture of mens Inventions as they never were Therefore their using of Ceremonies was only not going forward but our doing so were going backward Sure it was not so great a Fault in the People of Israel to be slow to entertain Moses proposing a Deliverance to them out of Aegypt as to talk of returning back thither Nor in Lot to linger in Sodom as in his Wife to loâ—k back toward it I hope these Comparisons may be pardoned not being intended to equal the Evils to be shunned but to illustrate the greater Evil of Backsliding than that of Continuing in a thing that is amiss Licet magna componere parviâ— If any Objection be made against the way that we came into that Possession I shall not dispute the Truth of that Allegation but the thing being our due by Gospel-Right we were to stand fast in the Liberty wherewith Christ had made us free Gal. 5. 1. I do not know that their freedom from Ceremonies could be defended at Man's Bar though I am sure it could at GOD's Bar and so can ours Sect. 6. A Third Difference is At this time Ministers of ancient standing and approved usefulness in the Work of the Gospel who had received Ordination in the way mentioned in Scripture by the laying on of the Hands of the Presbytery which is also the way of Ordination used in most Protestant Churches must be re-ordained otherwise they cannot be Ministers of the Church of England nor the People enjoy the benefit of their Labours Which Imposition was never heard of in the old Church of England nor the Need of it ever asserted P. Martyr Bucer and others that came from beyond Sea had the Right Hand of Fellowship given them in England as Ministers of Christ without that Neither was it ever heard of that I have met with in any of the Churches of the Reformation Therefore People then might hope to enjoy Godâ—s Ordinances from those that dispensed them purely which we cannot in your Church and consequently we have more cause to seek them where they may be had than our Ancestors had Fourthly There never was in the Protestant Church of England before our days such a number of the Lord's Harvest-men thrust out of his Work for their not complying with Humane Ceremonies in God's Worship Two Thousand some say more in one day before they were silenced one or two or three and that for some real or pretended personal Misdemeanour For tho' there was an Act of Vniformity in the beginning of Queen Eliz. Reign yâ—t Non-conformists preached and People heard them But here such a number laid aside and that meeâ—ly for Non-conformity and the People out of all Capacity to enjoy pure Ordinances in the Church Here was some more Reason for having the Ordinances by themselves than was before And to make this difference between our Case and that of our Ancestors more considerable these Ministers were silenced by the Church tho' clave errante ours only by the Magistrate who never preteâ—ded a Power to give or take away Ministerial Authority Fifthly We are under the solemn Oath of God against Superstition under which Head we reckon the Ceremonies which our Ancestors were not And we cannot see how our using of them consisteth with our keeping of that Oath Sect. 7. A Third general Consideration to blunt the edge of all this Historical Discourse of the Dr's is That the Sâ—paration that the old Non-conformists did so much oppose was quite another thing than that which he can charge upon us It is of two sorts that of the Brownists or rigid Separatists who denied the Church of England to be a True Church
one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
to get that removed where he considereth the several Principles on which he alledgeth That the several sorts of Dissenters do proceed in their separating from the Church I am not obliged nor shall I endeavour to defend all these the owners of them not agreeing among themselves let every one stand up for his own Principle But there is one general Principle that I think Non-conformists agree in That the Church of England imposeth some unlawful Terms of Communion and because of not submitting to these she excludeth the Dissenters from her Communion and being thus excluded they think it their duty to worship God apart by themselves when they are not suffered to do it with the Church without Sin. If any do add to this other Principles I leave the defence of them to their Authors This is to be further opened in the Third Part where the Dr. examineth the several Pleas for Separation He is pleased to take a great deal of pains to refute some things as insufficient Grounds for Separation which some Dissenters have mentioned in their Books as additional motives there being other sufficient Reasons for Non-communion which never any of them owned as the sole ground of their practice or a sufficient Reason for not joining with the Church by it self This is to set up a man of Straw that he may get a Victory by bearing him down Instances enough of this kind will occurr in our progress I shall consider what is argumentative against the Principle already mentioned that I hold SECT I. Some Opinions about Separation from the Church of England Examined THE Dissenters with reference to the Principles of their withdrawing from the Church he divideth into two sorts 1. Such as hold partial and occasional Communion with the Church lawful but not total and constant Communion and that they may chuse Communion where there is greater purity and edification 2. Such as hold any Communion with the Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion to be unlawful such as the Liturgy Cross c. This distinction is unhappily stated for 1. Non exhaurit divisum There is a third sort who hold partial and occasional Communion lawful but not total and constant and yet believe the Churches terms of Communion unlawful and because of that Belief cannot communicate totally and constantly with Her. We can hear a Sermon join in Prayer without partaking in any of the unlawful Terms of Communion to wit Ceremonies and Liturgy but we cannot enjoy other Ordinances and often we are even excluded from these by their Excommunications and therefore must seek the Ordinances elsewhere 2. Partial and Occasional Communion are not the same thing nor total and constant as to the lawfulness of them One may have communion with you and that not only occasionally but constantly in God's Ordinances that are kept pure and yet refuse communion with you in your own devices and in those Ordinances of God that ye have so annexed those devices to that the one cannot be had without the other And there are some that practise accordingly they wait on your Sermons and Pulpit-prayers constantly but refuse the rest of your Worship 3. I think there are few if any Non-conformists that think the Terms of Communion with your Church lawful and can keep occasional communion with Her and yet separate for greater purity and edification If any such be they make a causeless Separation indeed Sect. 2. He will now proceed with all clearness which he hath not done in the fore-mentioned distinction and consider three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several Parties 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation 3. What the true state of the present Controversie about Separation is For the first he saith There are three things that we cannot deny And I say There is not one of the three but they are to be denied or at least distinguished and not admitted as he setteth them down The first of them is That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church I do cordially agree with the learned Authors whom he citeth in the proof of this p. 95. That there is no cause of separating from the Church of England or refusing communion with all Her Congregations on account of that which is the Doctrine of the Church contained in the 39 Articles for we assent to them all as true except those about Bishops and Ceremonies and we would not separate from the Church because of Doctrinal mistakes in these things if the owning of them were not imposed as Terms of our communion with Her. But it is not so easie to perswade us that there is no just cause to withdraw from the Communion of some particular Parishes in England where Arminianism or Socinianism is commonly taught where the practice of Godliness is ridiculed and Principles striking at the root of it are instilled into the Hearers such as That all the aids of the spirit that men pretend to look after that are above that Exercise of their own Faculties that is in their own power is but fancy that the Person of Christ is not to be minded by Christians but only obedience to his Laws that Resting on Christ Rolling the soul on him are no fit expressions of Faith. What would the Dr. have serious Christians who are concerned about the Salvation of their Souls do when such a Minister is set over them Shall they hear him That were to sit down to a Table where Poison is strewed over all the Meat and it is hard if not impossible at the best dangerous to pick out a wholsome bit And it is contrary to Solomon's Advice Prov. 19. 27. Cease my son to hear the Instruction that causeth to erre from the words of knowledge They who would have such Doctrine heard but not received may as well advise to go to the Stews but not commit Fornication Should they complain to Superiors against the erroneous Preacher But what if they get no redress and the Heretick be countenanced and dignified notwithstanding that all this is known to the World by the Press as well as the Pulpit What if such a Case as this or little less evil be not rare Ought not people to seek their Souls Food in corners when they cannot have it in the publick Assembly being mean while ready again to join with the Assembly when the Lord shall remove this stumbling-block Sect. 3. The Second Concession of his Adversaries that the Dr. setteth down is That there is no other Reason of Separation because of the Terms of Communion that what was from the beginning of the Reformation A sufficient refutation of this may be seen Par. 1. Sect. 1 2 3 4. If he can tell of some Alterations that have been made to the better we can tell and have told of others made to the worse It may be Mr. Baxter thinketh Lay-communion easier than before
am at home I would join with the Publick Assembly in the True Protestant Church of England but that her Rulers impose unlawful Terms of Communion which forceth me and others to join together in Worshipping God apart and in that Assembly I am a Member till I can find a sinless access to the Publick Assembly where I desire to be a Member I suppose the Eastern Christians such as are sober and serious of them and are duly informed of the State of our Debates would not think me no Christian for this Answer nor deny me Occasional Communion for it I am sure if they did they should not then walk by the Rules of the Gospel Sect. 12. Another argumentative Consideration is p. 111. We were baptized in the Church of England and received as Members of it If then we communicate with it only occasionally we renounce our membership Ans. Whereever one be baptized that Baptism maketh him only a Member of the Catholick Church If an Inhabitant of England be occasionally in France and have his Child there baptized in the English way or in the French way Doth that make it a Member of the Church of France tho' the Child in Infancy be brought to England and there have Education and continue The Dr. had not it seems when his Book had come this length hatched his fine Notion of the Sign of the Cross being the Rite of Admission as a Member of the Church of England Ans. 2. We are obliged to fixed and constant communion though not by our being baptized in this Church yet by our residence in it and owning the same â—aith with it and are willing to own that Membership and Obligation But the Church's sinful Impositions do take off this Obligation for we cannot by any means or case be obliged to sin and therefore we do not renounce our Membership but the Church hindereth our answering that Obligation that our Membership layeth on us The Dr. despiseth this our yielding to occasional communion and it is no wonder for his Party forasmuch as they talk against us for withdrawing desire none of our communion as appeareth in excluding us by imposing such terms as they themselves count needless and we judge unlawful But whatever he think of it it is all that we can do We would bid more frankly in bargaining about our own matters but in God's matters dare not go one Ace beyond his Warrant Sect. 13. The next thing he bringeth against this Occasional Communion p. 111 112. is pure Trifling unworthy of so learned an Author That this Occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life That there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of not constant cleaving to the purer Occasions and leaving purer Administrations to join with a defective Church For a man may occasionally have Communion in publick when he cannot have it in private and that often And these Occasions we may embrace in a true Church which we would not do in a false Church but rather be without the Ordinances for that time Again We do not speak of Occasional Communion with the Church in any of Her corruptions we should alwaies abstain from and reprove those as he speaketh These things being considered the difficult Case of Conscience that he fansies hath an easie resolution That when we can enjoy God's Ordinances in the Society to which we are joined to shun the sinful Impositions that are in publick we should wait on them there rather than elsewhere but when that occasion is not offered we may join with a Church in some things corrupted in such Ordinances that are not corrupted in it Sect. 14. His next Argument is That here are no Bounds to the peoples Fancies of purer Administrations and less defective ways of Worship so that there can be no stop to separation in this way This Argument the Dr. prosecuteth with facetious Scoffs more than with solid Reasons which he but undeservedly most severely had taxed Mr. A. for he telleth us of Deserting our Meetings when the first relish is over and going to Anabaptists and thence to the Quakers and that they are bound to forsake us on the same Reasons that we left the Church unless they be secure that the perfection of our way is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fansy any defect in it Noâ—hing here that hath a shadow of Argument but it is already objected and answered but the Dr. falleth into frequent repetitions I answer It is not only for purer Administrations that we withdraw but to shun sinful Impositions which I am sure neither Anabaptists nor Quakers can justly alledge Neither is it the glaring visibility but the real Scripture-warrant for our way that condemneth them for departing from us Nor will Fansied Defects in our way excuse them but real sinful Terms in our Communion But that some will without cause separate from us is no reason why we should not on just cause withdraw from you Such a way of reasoning from the ill use that some will make of our doing our Duty is too vulgar to come from so Learned a Pen. The Dr. when he wrote this had forgotten it seems what he had said Iren. p. 109. where he saith A Christian is bound to adhere to that Church which appeareth most to retain the Evangelical Purity Which Assertion I no further improve than ad hominem counting it the opposite Extreme to what he here pleadeth for It is incident even to wise men Dum vitant vitia that in contraria currunt it is downright for us and against himself What he hath Iren. p. 116. A Christian is bound to break off from that Society that injoineth some corruptions as to practice What he citeth out of Mr. Baxter is a good and sound Reproof to them that causelesly divide the Church if he intended it against any others let him answer it The sad effects of R. William's Separation in new-New-England do not concern us further than to lament them unless the Dr. can prove that we have no better Reason for what we do than he had Sect. 15. His Refutation of Mr. B's Answer to this Objection that he had made I insist not on save that I observe his usual way here also his representing his Adversaries as if they held That Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship is sufficient ground for them to break the Church in pieces We think the less defective that Worship be it is the better but it may be the Dr. as well as Mr. B. writeth sometimes in haste Neither do we think Defectiveness but real Sinfulness and that imposed on us as the Terms of our Communion a sufficient ground of Separation Far less do we think that the Peoples apprehension of Defectiveness in Worship is a sufficient ground unless that apprehension be founded on Scripture or found Reason And least of all do we think that such
of the Prophets is subject to the Prophets not to the People As for Pastors not now to be Elected but obtruded on the people and sâ—tled among them tho' in an undue way I shall not say that it is the Peoples part to separate meerly for the Insufficiency of the Minister if the Ordinances be Administred so as they can partake of them without Sin. That which can warrant withdrawing must be a Depravation of the Ordinances and that such as importeth my personal Action in partaking of that depravation of the Ordinance and not every defect or fault either of the Minister or the Ordinance What Mr. B. saith of peoples Duty to get the best supply they can which the Dr. taxeth him for is not meant of dâ—ferting or separating from a Parish meerly on Accompt of the defective Qualiâ—â—cations of the Minister but either of Occasional Communion with a better supplied Society which if the Dr. do altogether condemn he should Preach against the Throngs that resort to him and leave others under whose particular charge they are Or when withdrawing is founded on other good Grounds that people should chuse better qualified Pastors than those they leave What he saith himself must Explain and Defend What Mr. B. further saith of the warrantable Preaching of Silenced Ministers and of the Magistrates imposing Pastors obliging people to adhere to and own these and forsake their own Pastors settled among them in the way of the Gospel come afterward to be debated and hath in part been spoken to above Sect. 5. Argument 3d. They give directions to the People what sort of Ministers they should own and what not And doth not the Scripture so too We Affirm people to have a Judgment of Discretion both of their Pastors to be Elected and also of the Doctrine and Administrations of their Pastors already in possession of the chaâ—ge of their Souls And yet that they are not to separate from the latter for any defect save that which doth so vitiate the Ordinances as that it is their Sin to join in them And if the Dr. will not allow them this Judgment as he seemeth to deny it by his Sarcasm of which saith he to wit utter Insufficiency and Heresie the People are admirable Judges he must introduce implicite Faith and Obedience And by this Doctrine it had been a Sin in the People even to have left Rome it self for were not they admirable Judges of the Heresie and Idolatry of that Church He that chargeth other mens way so fiercely with a Tendency to Popery should take heed of giving ground for such a Reflection to be made on himself Our Lord doth not speak with such Contempt of the People as this Learned Dr. doth He saith My Sheep hear my Voice and they know not the Voice of strangers Joh. 10. 27. and 5. to deny this Spirit of discerning to the People of God is to make them Sheep in a literal Sense that men may Rule over them as Beasts I see not such Inconsistency in Mr. B's Words as the Dr. would make us believe while he speaketh p. 123. of withdrawing from the utterly Insufficient and Heretical and p. 124. that people are not warranted to withdraw for a Ministers personal Faults nor for his ministerial Faults while his ministration is not utterly untolerable if the Dr. can shew either the Falshood or Inconsistency of these Assertions we shall own it He also wrongeth Mr. B. and the Non-conformists while p. 124. he telleth us of Mr. B's outcries against the People as Heady Rash Câ—nsorious Proud Ignorant such as are ready to Scorn and Vill fy the Gravest and Wisest Preachers And hence He the Dr. inferreth that such are unfit to discern the Qualifications of Ministers I ask the Dr. if ever Mr. B. said that the People were all or generally such We deny not there are too many that deâ—erve severe Reproofs for such things and Mr. B. hath not been too sparing in his Censures of them but is there any shadow of reason for inâ—erring thence That all the People should be deprived of the Right that Christ by his Testament hath bequeathed to them It were as reasonable to say that because many men Misguide or Debauch away their Estates therefore no man should haâ—e the Power of managing his Estate Christ hath provided Discipline and Authority in his House to Curb the Extravâ—gancy of such persons and to restrain the Power of Election when it is mis-managed as is above-said And he needed not the Dr's and tâ—e â—â—elates device to prevent this mischief by putting the power of Election into the Hands of a Patron who may be a Papist Atheist or Enemy to Godliness and so less fit to chuse one to take the charge of mens Souls than any of the Persons described Sect. 6. And if Mr. B. say That the heady Persons mentioned are commâ—nly the most violent and will judge in spite of the rest Yet the Remedy that I have mentioned is for restraining of them and is like to do it betâ—eâ— than what the Dr. is for can do Neither doth Mr. B. nor any of us allow these heady persons to be the decisive Judges either of who of his side or who of our side are true and sufficient Ministers Which the Dr. might have known and so spaâ—ed much of his discourse which I shall not Transcribe That which Mr. B. telleth of many young rare injudicious Preachers in England was never look'd on as sufficient ground of Separation by it sâ—lf as the Dr. insinuateth But it is a sad grievance and these men withal imposing sinful Terms of Communion on the people for who greater Zealots for Liturgy and Ceremonies than they and there being many faithful and qualified Ministers laid aside from their publick work is it any wonder that people leave the one and cleave to the other The Ground that I have already laid down will justifie our withdrawing from the Ministers even in London however Grave and Learned they be and however Capacious their Churches be For even their sinful Terms of Communion are imposed Sect. 7. He alledgeth Sect. 9. That by this means Separation cannâ—t be kept out of any Church whatsoever This is true if the Dr. have liberty to make our opinion to be what he pleaseth to have it that he may the better refute it But if our opinion be rightly understood and if we be heard speak for our selves it is most false I hope there are Churches where the Ministers generally are sound in Doctrine and mix nothing with God's Ordinances as Terms of â—ommunion with them that is unlawful In a Word There are Churchâ—s where tho' Ministers be not faultless yet the ordinances are pure or if there be any thing amiss in the Ordinances people are not required to own it peâ—sonally From such we will not withdraw He bringeth Four Qualities that Mr. B. required in Ministers the want of which may warrant to withdraw from them Tolerable Knowledge That they be
this is manifestly the ordinary strain of his preaching we say in that Case people may withdraw from a man for here the Ordinance of Preaching is wholly inverted and turned against that which it was appointed to promote There is as good ground in this case to desert a Minister as there is in a besieged Garrison for the Souldiers to desert their Commander when he turneth the Guns that are on the Walls from the Enemy upon the Town The Dr. rejecteth this as before by tart Reflection on Mr. B. which whatever it may be ad hominem is nothing ad rem If Mr B. hath sharply reproved some for Censoriousness Pride Divisions c. and these will count this opposing of Godliness Doth this peevish mistake of theirs prove that there can be no such thing really committed by a Minister or if it be that it should not be resented by the Hearers Or if Mr. B. sometimes speak at this rate is this his ordinary Doctrine or when men make Railing their ordinary Doctrine Should people sit and hear that as God's Ordinance for their Souls edification The Fourth Quality That Ministers be not of a scandalous Life Of this the Dr. saith nothing and I shall say little more than is already said We do not hold That personal faults in a Minister where the Ordinances are incorrupted is a sufficient ground of Separation from him But it cannot but be a sad Grievance and make people wait on the Ministry of such a person with less comfort and satisfaction and may warrant people that regard the advantage of their Souls to lay hold on the first opportunity that they can get to live under a Ministry that is more like to be blessed Sect. 13. He chargeth the Non-conformists without exception Sect. 10. with insinuating that the whole body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such faults as the people may lawfully separate A most false Assertion and unjust Charge Not one Non-conformist that ever I read or met with hath said or written this or words to this effect but they do generally disclaim it But the Dr. undertaketh to prove it by some particulars 1. They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing and then tell the people over and over again That it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests especially where the Scandal is so notorious I am astonished to read this from the Pen of one whom I am loath to have an harsh thought against We do indeed think Conformity a Sin and being open it cannot but be a Scandal and we think that in some it arising from a regardlesness of knowing what is right becometh yet more scandalous but none of us ever thought that a mistake of this nature in men otherwise sober and conscientious was a very scandalous thing or that it was such a scandal as by it self could warrant Separation But let the Dr. tell us of any one of our way that ever held this general Thesis That it is no Sin to separate from scandalous Priests when the Scandal is notorious I am sure Mr. B. whom he only citeth on this occasion teacheth the contrary oftner than once particularly Christ. Direct p. 718. and his looking on Conformity as Sin and an aggravated Sin and the pressing of it as that Sin which they charge us with to wit Schismaticalness do no way prove what the Dr. asserteth When Mr. B. saith p. 133. Can you wonder if the people chuse more faithful Pastors It doth not make the Clergy's Conformity the true Reason nor the main Reason neither of Separation yea nor doth it import an Approbation of Separation tho' he doth elsewhere shew his Approbation of it but only sheweth how you tempt the people to it Sect. 14. Another Argument to prove his charge is Sect. 11. That we count most of the present Ministers of the Church of England Vsurpers and that from such we may lawfully separate Ans. We deny both parts of his Assertion whatever Usurpation some of them may be guilty of We know most of them have the tacite at least consent of the people a post facto and therefore however they might be guilty of intrusion in their entry in their continuing in their places they are no Usurpers Neither do we own it to be lawful to separate from every Minister that is an Usurper meerly on the account of his Usurpation To clear this I shall lay down our opinion about this in these few Assertions 1. The regular way of entring into the Ministry is by the Election or Call of the People over whom he is to have charge and the potestative Mission or Ordination of the Pastors of the Church This will fall in afterward to be debated 2. It is consequential to this That whoever do not enter this way into the Ministry are in some degree or other Intruders into that Work. 3. Though the express Call of the people and their free consent be needful to the more orderly Entrance of a Minister among them yet if they implicitely shew their consent and they being prelimitted by the Presentation of a Patron or Commands of the Magistrate if they consent that is enough to the substance of a Call and maketh the Minister that so entereth no Usurper The reason is because he is only to consider the Will and Consent sufficiently declared not the motives nor considerations that influence their will. Indeed if the man had any hand by undue means to influence them to consent against their Duty and right Reason he is in so far guilty before God But this doth not nullifie his Call which consisteth in the peoples consent 4. There are three sorts of Usurpers of the Ministerial Office or Work. 1. Such as fall upon that Work without a Call from a people or Ordination by Ministers 2. Such as do it upon a peoples Call but have no Ordination or potestative Mission by those in Authority the Church for that end 3. Such as have Ordination but take the Charge of a particular Flock wholly without consent or against their will. The two former sorts usurp the Office the third usurpeth that particular Charge that he hath no right to 5. The Presentation of a Patron to the Living the Civil Laws of men injoining or owning a mans entrance into a place due Ordination Institution and Induction and what else men please to devise can never make him the Pastor of such a particular people without their consent some way had but without it he is still an Usurper This doth follow from the peoples right of chusing their Pastors which is to be afterward discoursed 6. It is lawful to Separate from usurping Ministers of the first and second sort because they are no Ministers they have only the name of Ministers like those that called themselves Apostles and were not Rev. 2. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny this 7. When a Minister is obtruded on a People against their will and so is an Usurper of
form of worship and if there be where is it forbidden but in this Commandment Or let him give us any reason why Humane Inventions relating to the manner and form of worship are not forbidden as well as these that relate to the way of it A Reason indeed he pretendeth to give Otherwise saith he all Vse of Mens inventions as to preaching reading interpreting Scripture would be forbidden and then this interpretation of the second Command would be unlawful because it is a meer invention of Man as much as Liturgies and Ceremonies If this be to reason like a Divine or to quibble like a Sophister let the Reader judge for the Invention that men make use of in preaching c. is the act or exercise of their faculties whereby they find out the mind of God The inventions in God's worship that we â—ow debate about are Objects found out by Men not commanded by God. If Men devise unrevealed Objects in Reading Preaching c. we condemn them in that as well as in devising ways of worshipping God And if the Dr. mean that this exposition of the second Commandment is an invention of Man that is the exercise of his inventive Faculty whereby he findeth out the Mind of God he speaketh wide from the purpose when he compareth that with things that men devise to worship God by If he mean That the Interpretation is only devised not warranted let him prove that and we shall reject it Sect. 12. I hope by this time the impartial Reader may judge whether we stretch and force Scripture to condemn Liturgies and Ceremonies as the Dr. saith or he doth so to defend them That he imputeth to us blinding and fettering our minds by Education and reading but one sort of Books and taking things for granted which we ought not we resolve to bear patiently and must accept of these instead of better Arguments to refute our Principle His instance of the deniers of Infant-Baptism proveth fully that the Schism doth not alwaies lie on the Imposer's side tho' they separate from us because of our using it without considering imposing it on them VVho of them have been excommunicated for not using it as we are for forbearing the Ceremonies If men will separate because the Ordinances of God are imposed on them let them answer it we scruple only the Ordinances of Man Neither did we ever say that the blame of separation doth in all câ—ses lie on the Imposers And we confess that where imposâ—d Terms of Communion are scrupled through mistake they that separate on that scruple do sin And we yield also to him that not the pretence of Conscience but sufficient proof of the unlawfulness of the Terms of Communion is a good ground of Separation and we still desire that the matter may be put to that issue Sect. 13. He proceedeth next to set â—orth the principles of them who hold all Acts of Communion with the Church of England unlawful of them he hath little to say their mind as he saith being easily discovered and we are not concerned in that opinion and therefore shall not insist on it Only I see not on what grounds the Dr. nameth the Author of the Book called Jerubbaal as one that is against the lawfulness of hearing the conforming Ministers preach for that Author 〈◊〉 p. 12. of himself and others whom Mr. C. had charged with Schism because they could not communicate with Her in the Liturgy that they joined with Her in the instituted VVorship and substantial Ordinances of Christ as Prayer Hearing of the Word preached singing of Psalms c. SECT IV. The Dr's stating of the Question Examined and the Question truly Stated THE several Principles of the Dissenters having been examinedâ— the Dr. now proceedeth to state the Question about Separation Some think this should have been done before examining of the Principles on which men separate but the Dr. must use his own method and we must follow him in examining what he saith He giveth us Sect. 15. his Concessions which I shall say little of save to make a Remark on one or two of them And 1. His third Concession is He can allow different modes of Worship in Cathedral and Parochial Churches in publick and private Administrations these being allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live but What is this saith he to the denying of constant Communion with our Churches to the chusing of new Pastors It is true these are two different things the difference is the one is allowed by the Church the other not so But consider the things in themselves and abstracted from the Churches pleasure and there will appear to be as little Vniformity between Cathedral and Parochial Worship as between their Parochial Worship and that used in the Meetings of the Dissenters Now we gladly would know of the Dr. or any of his Party seeing the Church can yield so far to Parochial Assemblies as not to tie them to the same Modes with Cathedral Assemblies because they cannot go to the expence of it And seeing the Church dispenseth with crossing in prâ—vate Baptism why may She not condescend so far to the Dissenters who cannot for their Consciences use these things and so shun this Breach in the Church this denying of Communion with their Churches and chusing of new Pastors Are the Consciences of men so little to be regarded or Is it fit the Church should be so imperious over her Members as that She will indulge Mens Purses but not their Consciences She will dispense with the sign of the Cross for Her pleasure but not for peoples consciences when they can shew good reason for what they think and make conscience of This is wholly unaccountable and very inconsistent with those high pretentions that our Brethren make of regard to Peace and Unity Sect. 2. Another remark I make of his 4th Concession That the Church alloweth a different mode of Worship to Foreign Churches set up in England because they break not off Communion with the Church of England as they do who were Baptized in it But why may not the Church be as kind to her own Members as to Strangers if the Ceremonies be necessary why should the neglect of them be permitted to any If unnecessary why should they be forced on mens Consciences to the Rending of the Church The breaking off of Communion that he talketh of may be prevented by this Condescendency and therefore it is most unreasonable to charge us with that as a Sin which we are under a Necessity to do for shunning the wounding of our Consciences and sinning against God and which they might as easily prevent by shewing us that Favour that they shew to others I take notice also of his 6th Concession That it was no sinful Separation to keep up the Exercise of True Religion under Arians against the will of the Magistrate But what is this to our Case where true Doctrine is taught It is very much to our Case for
the reason why the Orthodox might Worship God apart from the Arians was because it had been their sin to join in corrupted Worship though we do not equal the owning of the Arian Doctrine and using the Ceremonies yet we reckon the one to be Sin as really as the other and we may not commit a smaller Sin to enjoy Communion with a Church more than we may commit a greater Sin for that end And we are not obliged to live without the Ordinances of God when we cannot have them with the Church without Sin more than the Oxthodox were who lived under the Arians Sect. 3. Tho' the Dr. it seems had designed this Section for stating of the Question upon which his whole Book is founded I see no formal Stating of it Concessions are but preparatory to the Stating of a Controversie except that he saith he had told Mr. B. that all our dispute was whether the upholding separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine Established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a sinful Separation or not This is no sufficient stating of the Controversy between the Prelatists and Dissenters about Separation Two things in it are not sufficiently clear and some things needful to be minded in our present Controversy are left out The First thing that is not clear is That he will not allow any fault in Doctrine to justifie Separation but what is in the Established Doctrine that is either that which is contained in the Churches confession of Faith or is setled by Law. But it is evident there may be such faults in Doctrine as may make them that regard their Souls Health withdraw from a Church which are not here comprehended that is when gross Errors are commonly taught contrary to the Doctrine contained in the Publick Confession of Faith and which is Established by Law That this is a Case supposeable yea that it ought to have been supposed with reference to our Controversy appeareth in that it is most common in England for Ministers who have subscribed the 39. Articles to teach Doctrines quite contrary to them as I observed above It is no rarity for unconscientious men to subscribe to whatever is imposed rather than lose a Benefice and mean while to Hold and Teach what they please notwithstanding of such Subscription Now if a Church should become so corrupt that Heresie is commonly taught though the Orthodox Faith be Established ought not People to withdraw from that Church Or if many teach dangerous Doctrine contrary to established Truth ought not People withdraw from such Teachers Especially when there is no way to get this unsound teaching removed or restrained Sect. 4. Another thing in the Dr's State of the Question is unclear to wit That where the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be right there should be no Separation What he meaneth by these is a Controversy it self and he is at a great deal of Pains to clear what he meaneth by this Term Part. 3. p. 334. whither I referr the Debate with him about it But what if any part of Worship be unlawful call it Substantial or Circumstantial or what he will Or what if something be Annexed to the True Worship of God which is sinful but yet so peremptorily imposed as none shall worship God without it I ask the Dr. whether in this case we may separate though we scruple not any part of that worship that he is pleased to call Substantial Worship Sect. 5. Some things are also left out by the Dr. in his Stating of the Controversy which were needful to have been minded As 1st To clear what he meaneth by Separation I have above shewed that sometimes they that are charged with Separation are meerly Passive in it sometimes they are Active The First is when the Church casteth them out because they cannot submit to her Impositions The Second when they take offence at something in the Church and therefore leave her but are not cast out by her but have free and peaceable Access to all her Ordinances In the first Case which is ours if they causlesly scruple at the Impositions they may be charged with Ignorance or Errour of Conscience or Peevishness and Willfulness but how they can be charged with Separation I know not more than a Banished Man can be blamed as a Fugitive from his Country And if they have good cause to scruple the Impositions I see not how any blame can be fixed on them at all 2. He should have shewed whether by Separation he meaneth casting off all ties to have Communion with that Church more than with another Church that professeth the true Faith as a Man or Company that live in Holland have no more Tie to Communicate in England than in France c. or a present forbearing of Communion because of sinful Terms with owning an Obligation to communicate with this Church when these Bars shall be removed In the one case all relation to that Church in particular is cast off in the other not so It is but a suspending the Exercise of Communion as a Church-member not a disowning it or casting it off Sect. 6. He is defective in mentioning no other alledged grounds of Separation but false Doctrine Established or wrong substantial parts as he calleth them of Worship He knoweth little of the Controversy that he manageth if he knew not that other grounds are alledged and therefore it had been fair to have fixed the Question on them whether it be lawful to separate on such and such grounds It is true his question may include all the grounds that can be alledged beside the two mentioned but that which is the main Hinge of our Controversy should have been mentioned in stating of the Question 4. It being confessed on both Hands that there is a sinful Separation it should have been one part of his question where the Sin of this Separation is chargeable whether on the Imposers or the Scruplers of those things that cause the Separation But he is willing to set his Church beyond all imaginable blame and to put the Question only whether the Dissenters have any blame or not 5. It should not have been omitted to enquire whether the Grounds alledged for Separation lie in things really Evil or only fanâ—ied to be such And again whether the Evil of them be such as will bear the weight of Separation Sect. 7. I shall then endeavour to state the Question more fully and clearly than the Dr. hath done There are indeed divers questions on which this question about Separation doth depend and therefore our Controversy cannot be represented in one single question to which an Affirmative or Negative Answer will suffice It is then 1. A great part of our Controversy seeing the Liturgy as to the Frame of it and Ceremonies are by the Clergy thought indifferent and so unnecessary That God may be acceptably Worshipped without them and the
Dissenters think them unlawful to be used and are able to make it appear by good reason that it is not Humour but Conscience that moveth them so to think whether they should impose these on the Dissenters and so force them either to separate or sin against their Consciences 2. It is a part of our Controversie and that indeed on which it mainly hangeth whether to worship God by the Liturgy and with the Seremonies be a Worship acceptable to him or such as he will reject If he will approve them to be acceptable Worship yea lawful to be used all our other questions will cease 3. Supposing them to be unacceptable worship as the Non-conformists believe and supposing them to be so imposed by the Church as we cannot enjoy God's Ordinances without them with the Church The question is whether we should chuse to use them or forbear the Ordinances with the Church 4. It is yet another question supposing the unlawfulness of using them and impossibility of joining with the Church without them whether we ought to live without the Ordinances of God or keep separate Meetings where we may enjoy God's Ordinances without sinful mixtures of Man's inventions I deny not but several other questions may fall in while we are debating these but these are the main points in difference between our Brethren and Us. Some have not unfitly though not so fully comprized all the Controversie in this question whether we ought to worship God only according to the Prescript of his Word or may do it by the Traditions of Men SECT V The Dr's Arguments examined for Occasional Communion HAving Stated the Question he is resolved to make the charge of Separation against all the Dissenters And 1st against those that deny constant Communion to be a Duty where-ever Occasional Communion is lawful 2. Against them that hold all Communion with the Church of England unlawful He insisteth on the 1st Sect. 16. c. There was here also need of clear stating of this question which I have done above and here resume it briefly Occasionâ—l Communion is either in some Duties or in all Duties and so is constant Communion I hope he doth not mean that they who think it lawful to communicate with the Church in some Ordinances as Preaching Prayer c. are consequently to that obliged to think it lawful to Communicate with them in all Ordinances because they have annexed unlawful Terms of Communion to some Ordinances and not to others The Question then is whether they who because they cannot enjoy all the Ordinances without Sin in the Publick Assembly and yet think they may enjoy some of them without Sin and have for enjoying all God's Ordinances without Sin set up a Meeting apart from the Church for that end whether I say such are obliged constantly to attend these Ordinances in the Publick Assembly where there is no Sin in their joining in To make the thing plainer by Instances we may lawfully hear Sermons by the Conformists and do not shun to do it occasionally but they have annexed such unlawful Terms of Communion to the Sacraments and sometimes even to their Preaching by their second Service at the end as well as the first at the beginning that we cannot at all enjoy the Sacraments and but seldom other Ordinances in purity and therefore are forced to have Meetings where we may enjoy all the Ordinances in purity Now the Question is whether in that case we are obliged constantly to wait on Preaching in the Publick Assembly rather than in our private Meetings The Dr. is for the Affirmative we are for the Negative Sect. 2. Before I examine what the Dr. saith for his opinion I shall in a few words lay down the Grounds on which we deny any such obligation to lie on us 1. We are cast out of their Church by Excommunication all of us being Excommunicated ipso facto on our Non-conformity by the Canon as the Dr. confesseth though he labour to palliate the Matter Praef. P. 74. and Part. 3. P. 367. And many of us yea most of us in many places Excommunicated by Name and Prosecuted with such Severities that we may not be seen in Publick It is strange that they should cast us out of their Communion and at the same time blame us for forbearing their Communion 2. This partial Communion that the Dr. would have us constantly use can neither satisfie the Laws of the State which he layeth so much stress on in Church-matters nor of the Church There is no Law for hearing of Sermons but only for waiting on the Service and Sacraments from which they have excluded us by their Impositions Why then should they blame us for forbearing that Communion with them which themselves lay so little weight on while they have excluded us from that which they count Church-Communion so as the Dr. himself reckoneth hearing a Sermon not to be 3. Being by their unlawful Impositions necessitated to have Meetings and Pastors for Administration of all God's Ordinances we think our selves more obliged to wait constantly on hearing of the VVord in those Meetings and from those Pastors than in the Assembles which we are so necessitated to leave or rather are driven from for a time Sect. 3. In order to proving his opinion about Occasional Communion the Dr. undertaketh to make out 1. That bare Occasional Communion doth not excuse from the Guilt of Separation 2. That as far as Occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty The First of these we are little concerned to dispute with him we bring other Grounds to clear our selves of the Guilt of Separation that he layeth on us Neither do I see how that by it self could do it If we have no cause to forbear constant Communion we cannot satisfie the Obligation that lieth on us to the Unity of the Church by Communion with her now and then It is no wonder that the Presbyterians as he saith were not satisfied with Occasional Communion granted to them by the Dissenting Brethren because they saw no just cause of their denying constant Communion which if we cannot shew in our case we are indeed faulty I have above shewed how we are Members of the Church and how not And do not plead that Occasional Communion maketh one a Member but I hope it will not be denied but that with protestation of the Grounds on which we own it will shew that we do not cast off all sort of Membership with the Church and it may excuse from the tantum though not from the totum of Separation as I believe it did in the Independants compared with the Brownists in reference to the Presbyterians which the Dr. instanceth For his discourse against Mr. B. for being Eighteen years without Administring or receiving the Sacrament and yet Preaching What Evil is in it or in other instances of this nature will be charged on his Party who deprive us of the Ordinances of
as to study the one is to study the other also and neglecting the one is to neglect the other If he say they are not why doth he here conjoin them Will not the study of Peace answer this injunction of the Apostle without Uniformity If he say they are it is easie to prove the contrary for not only we have Peace and Unity with other Churches though not Vniformity but the Church of England alloweth a Difformity within her self to wit between Cathedral and Parochial Service and yet I hope she alloweth no Schism nor breach of Unity or will the Dr. say that the Apostle here injoineth Vniformity among all particular Assemblies in a Church except in Cathedrals I confess it is like he did not mind their Vniformity for he knew no such distinction of Churches or Officers on whom it dependeth under the New Testament Sect. 8. I ask Secondly what sort of Vniformity doth he think the Apostle doth here injoin if in Doctrine instituted Worship Holy Conversation and such like I grant it to be our Duty to study it But if in the same Forms and Words of Prayer in the same religious instituted Ceremonies yea or in all the same Circumstances let him prove that the Apostle meant any such thing for we deny it And it is generally held that the Ancient Church which the Dr. thinks could not possibly so soon degenerate from Apostolick practice was very various and not Uniform in her Rites and Customs as may be seen in Daillie's right use of the Fathers Lib. 2. p. 148. but much more fully in the Dr's own Irenicum p. 65 66. He must be a great Stranger to the Primitive Church that takes not notice of the great Diversity of Rites and Customs used in particular Churches without any censuring of those that differed from them or if any by inconsiderate Zeal did proceed so far as the Dr. and others now doth how ill it was resented by other Christians A great deal more to that purpose is excellently there said But O quantum mutatus ab illo We deny that Vniformity such as that our Brethâ—en use to plead so hotly for was any part of the Apostles meaning and therefore it ought to be no part of the Dr's Argument from this Text. Sect. 9. I do in the Third place readily acknowledge that the Apostle here designeth to engage Christians as far as they can attain by their understanding of what is their Duty and as far as they can lawfully do to study Peace and Unity as with all men so with the Church of which they are Members But how doth this prove constant Communion with the Church to be our duty for if he mean constant Communion in the Liturgy and Ceremonies we have not attained so far We see not the lawfulness of the use of these much less of the constant use of them and therefore the Apostle doth not enjoin us to study Peace and Unity that way I should rather think that a concludent Argument might be brought from this Text to perswade our Brethren to study the Peace and Unity of the Church by not pressing us with these things nor forcing us to withdraw from the Church because of them for they have attained so far they know them to be indifferent and so unnecessary They and we agree in this Attaintment why then do we not walk by the same Rule in laying them aside and minding the same things to wit the Unity of the Church and not our own Enriching Grandeur and Dominion over our Brethren But if he mean constant Communion with the Church in the Orninance of Preaching 1. That themselves hinder by their Excommunication 2. That is not Duty in the Circumstances that their Violence hath placed us in as hath been shewed 3. That could not conduce to Peace and Unity while we are necessitated to keep separate Meetings on other accounts So that the Apostle's command in this Text doth not at all reach our case and how far it reacheth the Imposers let them look to it Sect. 10. Having thus defended our cause from his Argument built on this Text even supposing his own Exposition of the Text I shall not need to be concerned in what Exposition others give of it nor in his Refutations of them yet I shall take notice of a few things in his discourse on this Text which may seem to make against our cause And 1. this Refutation of Dr. O. who saith That the Apostle understandeth the different Attainments of Christians in knowledge supposing which they should jointly practise what they know and bear with one another in what they differed about To confirm this if iâ— be not a Crime to make use of Mr. Pool's Criticks which the Dr. objecteth to Mr. A. the poor Non-conformists not having Deanâ—ies to furnish them with vast Libraries this seemeth to be the general opinion of Interpreters gradum illum cognitionis rerum divinarum perfectioris vitae say Menochius Estius and Tirinus In eo quod revelavit Deus saith Zanchius Who though he apply it by way of Consequence against Dissentions in the Church as the Dr. aâ—leâ—geth p. 176. yet doth down-right make the Apostle to mean of Degrees of Knowledge and his applying it against Dissentions doth not say that he presseth Unity in Mens Devices but in God's Truth and Institutions which no doubt the Apostle doth also recommend Also Bullinger in loc not cited by Mr. Pool Idem sentientes concordibus votis calculis studiis progrediamur agnitaque veritate provehamur Let the Dr. shew us one Interpreter that expoundeth this passage of Studying the Churches Peace by Vniformity in Ceremonies and Liturgy I think himself is the first that hatcht that Opinion Sect. 11. The Dr. here against Dr. O. discusseth three Points the first is Whether the Apostle speaketh here of different Opinions or of different Practices He endeavoureth to prove the latter because the Apostle beginneth with a Caution against them that were for Circumcision and maketh a digression concerning himself he adviseth People to agree in pursuing their main end and then bringeth in the Case of them that were not satisfied about the Law that People should not listen to them because they made Divisions among them and divided them by different Observations This is to expound Scripture by our fancy It is evident that the Apostle is speaking of Justification which the Concision Thought must be by the Works of the Law And this he refuteth from his own practice of looking after another Righteousness but he would have them to deal tenderly with those that had not yet learned the Truth even in that great point waiting till God should instruct them I see nothing that he saith to prove that it was meant of different Practices but rather of different Opinions that divided the Church But whether the one or the other it proveth not that we should go over the Belly of our Light to keep Peace but rather bear
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
Communion They separate because the Church is polluted with these We only because we dare not pollute our own Consciences with them If we may have leave but to forbear personal concurrence in these we think the fault of other men I mean in things of that nature no ground for us to withdraw from the Ordinances in and with the Church so that in effect they go away from the Church We are driven away by the Church Sect. 3. The first Argument that the Dr. bringeth against denying Communion to the Church is It weakâ—neth the Câ—use of the Reformation This he undertaketh to prove by the testimony of some French Divines and he beginneth with Calvin whose words too long here to be transcribed do prove indeed Separation from a Church to be unlawful because of lesser Impurities or great Faults while the Doctrine and Worship are not greatly corrupted But he speaketh not one word of the Case of them who are driven away from a Church because they cannot submit to sinful Terms of Communion with Her yea he speaketh more in favour of such a Case than against it for he maketh Corruption in Christ's Institutions even in the words cited by the Dr. p. 181 182. and being anathematized for not complying with these Corruptions a ground of Separation from the Church of Rome which is parallel to our case But saith the Dr. he doth not mean indifferent Rites Ans. Neither do we scruple indifferent Rites but sinful Ceremonies And tho' I am far from comparing the Church of Enâ—land with that of Rome as â—o causes of Separation yet here there is a likeness the one rejecteth some of her Members because they will not sin with her and will force her Impositions on their Consciences and so doth the other Another Author he citeth is Daillie giving most substantial Reasons for Separation from Rome and he doth not mention our Ceremonies among them And what need was there to mention them when there were such weighty Reasons beside to be insisted on But Monsieur Daillie saith expresly if the differences had been such as we might safely have yielded to then Separation had been rash and unjust So say we for we cannot yield to the lesser sinfulness of superstitious Worship as we cannot to that which is greater to wit idolatrous Worship Sect. 4. Next he citeth Amyraldus who saith If there had been no other faults in the Roman Church beside their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in Her Communion Ans. Neither should we refuse Communion with the Church of England for these and such-like faults We refuse the use of these and because of that the Church casteth us out of Her Communion And if Amyrald us say That he would have used these rather than have fallen under Rome's anathema we leave him to his own Sentiments in that but are of another opinion It is no wonder these men think little or next to nothing of the Evil of our Ceremonies when they are compared with these Romish Abominations but when we consider them by themselves and compare them with Scripture we cannot think so of them The Dr. further urgeth us with the Answers given by Claude Paion and Turretine to the Book entituled Prejudes legitimes contre les Calvinustes That they do not defend the Reformation by the unlawfulness of the Ceremonies this is both false and inconcludent It is false for Monsieur Claude spendeth a good part of the Third Chapter of his First Part in defending the ground and right that the Reformers had to depart from the Communion of the Romish Church because of their Ceremonies One of the chief Objects saith he that presented it self to our Fathers was that of the great number of the Ceremonies which he setteth forth as defacing God's Worship making it look partly like Judaism and partly like Heathenism He saith It was without doubt a character very opposite to the Gospel of Jesus Christ and much more to that purpose What the other two Answerers of that Book say on this Head I know not for I have not seen them This Argument is also inconcludent because the Reformation is abundantly defended by weightier Objections against Popery Sect. 5. One passage he citeth p. 184. out of Mr. Turretine that no tolerable superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience are sufficient grounds of Separation And the Dr. addeth is parenthesi as they cannot be where they are not forced on it by fâ—lse Doctrine To Mr. Turretine's Assertion I assent for nothing that is tolerable can warrant Separation And I deny not that some Superstitious Rites may be tolerable to wit where men will use them and do not impose them on others They that are left to their liberty may well tolerate others in the use of them but I do not so well see that any Superstition imposed is tolerable to a tender Conscience for Superstition is Sin and no Sin is tolerable in that case To the Dr's Parenthesis I answer That it is absolutely false and I wonder that he should assert it so confidently without proof for that I may not deny as he asserteth without reason 1. A Superstitious Riâ—e is one of the Traditions of Men in the Worship of God and that the Scripture doth simply condemn without all noticing of any false Doctrine to enforce the Tradition I know not what false Doctrine the Pharisâ—ical Washings were enforced with but I am sure Christ condemneth them without mention of any such false Doctrine distinct from the asserting of their lawfulness Mat. 15. 6 9. but of this afterward 2. May not enforcing a Superstitious Riâ—e on the Conscience of one that scruples it by Command and Will make it to defile the Conscience as well as enforcing it by false Doctrine If this Doctrine were true men might impose what they will in the Worship of God they might impose all the Rites that ever Jews or Heathens used or Papists either if they keep but orthodox mind and give no reason that is heterodox for these Rites but only sic volo sic jâ—beo To what purpose he citeth le Blanch shewing the impossibility of re-union with the Papists I see not but that many Names of Authors make a shew and it argueâ—h great reading for he saith not one word of the â—eremonies and we all know that if we would swallow down not only the Ceremonies of England but those of Rome it self yet Re-union with them is impossible on other grounds Sect. 6. It was needful that the Dr. should bring all this Discourse and these long Citations home to his purpose which every Reader could hitherto hardly â—iscern how it should be done Wherefore p. 185. he telleâ—h us what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing else to justifie our Separation from them by but the things that we now scruple And he telleth us how we would be laughed at all
make a part of these Sect. 6. But because the diversity of Civil Powers and frequent clashings of them in divers Nations maketh this hardly practicable therefore the highest Church-power is usually in National Assemblies And tho' I am far from the opinion of them who think that Church Government should be modelled according to the civil government of the Nation the contrary of which I have asserted elsewhere against the Learned Author whom I now dispute with yet in this particular it not only may but must be suited to the extent of the Civil Government This being no essential part of Church-Government nor instituted but a Circumstance of it determinable by necessity and conveniency On the same Score where a Congregation could have no other to Associate with it might act Independently and be blameless 6. Tho' Christians should so divide themselves into particular Churches as they may attend the Ordinances together ordinarily yet is not this meeting together but their being under the particular Inspection of the same Officers that maketh one particular Church For 1. One Congregation may encrease to that number that one place cannot contain them and yet continue one Congregation till they be regularly divided Thus it was in some of the Ancient Churches 2. Where Parochial Bounds are so large as all the People cannot always travel to one place the Pastor or Pastors of the Church may well have places more convenient for some of them where he or they may Administer the Ordinances to them sometimes as in Chapels of Ease and yet they all continue one particular Church 3. It is a frequent case with Families that but a part of them at one time can leave the House to wait on publick Ordinances and the rest at another time yet are they one Congregation 4. In a time of Persecution where the Flock is but small and might easily be contained in one House the Danger of numerous Meetings may be such as it may be needful that but a part of them should come together at once and that by turns as we are necessitated at this time to do This doth not make divers Congregations All this considered we are little concerned whether in the Primitive Times there were but one Chuâ—ch in a City or more Whether those called Churches did meet in one place or not as long as the one Party cannot prove that each Meeting was ruled Independantly by it self nor the other that a Diocesan Bishop ruled over more Churches than one and over their Presbyters Sect. 7. Before I part with this dâ—scourse of the Dr's about the Unity of Churches I take notice of his confident Asserting p. 226. the impossibility of the change of Church-Government so suddenly from its first institution even though the Church fell into Heresies very soon yet this change could not be The same thing he had asserted before and I have answered it Praef. Sâ—ct 9. His further considerations to enforce what he had said are not weighty to wit That Government is so nice and tender a Point thâ—t they cut of whose Hands it was taken by those who usurped it would certainly have complained This he enlargeâ—h upon But I answer 1. It may be they did that they did not is not proved by the silenâ—e of History A Negative Argument here is not concludent especially considering the Lameâ—ess of the History of the first Centuries and what we have of it is by those who had a Hand in the Usurpation 2. He doth not consider that Men might Sleep while others were robbing them as Christ foretold Matth. 13. 25. 3. We may rationally think that Government in the Church which then was no Lordly Dominion but a painful Ministery or Serviâ—e and made unpleasant by the cross Humors of them that needed it most was not then so â—ice and tender a Point to honest and well-meaning Presbyters as it is now to our aspiring Church-men they were Men of another stamp they were willing to lie by if the work were done and they might think that others might do it better than they this is not to justifie them but to take off mens wonder at this and Men of higher parts and Spirits might easily by degrees wrest Power out of the Hands of as good men as themselves who were not so fore-seeing as they should have been nor so tinctured with Ambition as they though other ways good and eminent Men. And we need the less wonder at this when we consider that this thing was not done suddenly but by insensible steps in the space of three or four Hundred Years Cyprian whom the Dr. layeth most weight on in this matter lived in the third Century even then we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy was setled What the Dr. saith under this Head of the Plurality of Congregations in the several Cities that seemeth to prove Episcopal Power over Presbyters shall be answered 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the next Section where it is more proper Also what he here saith against popular Election is to be considered in its place because I would not confound Subjects so divers SECT III. Whether Diocesan Episcopacy be lawful THE Second Plea for Separation that the Learned Dr. considereth is the Vnlawfulness of Diocesan Episcopacy which he taketh a great deal of pains to prove to be 1. Primitive 2. Not repugnant to any Institution of Christ 3. That its Discipline as exercised in England doth not overthrow the Being of Parochial Churches All this he manageth Sect. 8 c. I might shun this whole Debate having above disowned this as a Plea for Separation except in so far as we are required to own it But because we look on this Episcopacy as unlawful to be used or owned I shall examine what the Dr. saith in defence of it This is done already to much more advantage than can be expected from me by the learned Auther of No Evidence for Diocesan Churches or Bishops c. and the defence of that Piece under the Title of Diocesan Churches not yet discovered in the Primitive Times which might supersede all that I have to say and shall make me say the less referring the Reader to these two most Learned Books yet lest there should be an hiatus in this Disâ—ourse I shall not wholly decline this debate with the Doctoâ— Sâ—ct 2. Mr. b's Frame of Church-Government which the Dr. disproveth p. 242 243. being singular himself can best defend it wherefore I leave it and shall attend the Dr's proof of the three particulars above mentioned first asserting a few things that may clear our way 1. That it is not the Name of Bishop that we quarrel it being applied in Scripture to all the ordinary ruling Officers in the Church as distinguished from her Servants the Deacons Phil. 1. 1. and the Exercise of it called a good Work 1 Tim. 3. 1. and applied to all the Elders of Ephesus Act. 20. 28. 2. We meddle not with their Titles and Revenues those are the Magistrates
the Government of Churches we deny not tho' we deny that they had that Office or any part of it but then the question is whether they alone who in the 2. or 3. Century began to get the name of Bishops appropriate to them had that Government by themselves or in Common with the rest of the Presbyters unless the Dr. prove the former he speaketh not to the point None hath better proved the contrary of what is here held by the Dr. then he himself Iren. p. 308. to wit That not Bishops alone but all Presbyters succeeded to the Apostles and that by Testimonies out of Cyprian Ierom and Ignatius Sect. 11. He undertaketh to prove that the English Episcopacy doth not take away the whole Power of Presbyters as some alledge And that therefore it maketh no new Species of Government from what Christ Instituted or was read in the Ancient Church We do not alledge that it taketh away the whole power of Presbyters for that were to reduce them into the same order with the rest of the people but we say it usurpeth an undue power over them that neither Christ nor the Primitive Church ever allowed in taking out of their hand that power of Governing the Church that they have equal with the Bishop and in other things to be observed in our progess In order to makeing out what he alledgeth he proposeth two things to be enquired into Sect. 12. First What power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops have â—ver them For the first he asserteth their power in reference to the whole body of the Church and that because they have a place in the convocation where rules of Discipline Articles of Doctrine and forms of Service are determined How small a matter this is tho' the Dr. aggravateth it I do with him appeal to any Man of understanding who is unbyassed and who knoweth the constitution of an English Convocation it consisteth of two Houses in the upper House are only Bishops and let the lower House never so unanimously vote for a thing they can reject it that is 25 Men who by the Laws of the Gospel have no more power then any other 25 of near 9000 so many Churchs are reckoned in England take to themselves as much power as all these Then for the lower House of the Convocation it is made up of Presbyters indeed as the Dr. saith but many if not most of them such as by no Law of Christ have more power to sit there than any others have as Deans Arch-deacons and other Cathedral Officers here also the Presbyters are bereaved of that party of power that is their due besides that few of the inferior Presbyters are admitted often not above two or four in a Diocess If then their power be not swallowed up by the Bishops and their Creatures in the Convocation let any judge He next proveth the power by the hand that they have in Ordination or giving Orders as he calleth it to wit That by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to asist the Bishop and are to examine the persons to be ordained or the Bishop in their presence and to join the Imposition of hands Here also their power is swallowed up for all the rest have equal power with these four yea with the Bishop himself which is wholly taken out of their hands and managed at the Bishops pleasure who chuseth these four beside that this is really if ever practised the person is usually examined or said to be so by the Bishops Chaplain and the Bishop layeth his hands on him Sect. 12. Next he telleth us what power Presbyters have in their particular Charges p. 267. which he leaveth us to gather from 3 topicks The Epistle that is read at the Ordination of a Presbyter to wit Act. 20. or 1 Tim. 3. What an impertinency saith the Dr. had both these been if the Presbyters power had been swallowed up by the Bishop A goodly Argument some think it a great Impertinency and Boldness too in the face of these Scriptures to make a distinction as to any part of Church Power between a Presbyter and a Bishop His next topick is the Bishops Exhortation at the Ordination where he telleth them of the dignity of the Office and greatness of the Charge calleth them Pastors that they are to Teach Premonish and Feed and provide for the Lords Family c. This indeed implyeth their Preaching Power but there is not a word of Ruling Power which the Lord joyned with it but the Bishops do separate them and for all this saying over their cold â—esson at the Solemnity the Bishops will not suffer the Presbyter to Preach by vertue of this Ordination without License so that their Ruleing Power is taken away and their Preaching Power restraineâ— at the Bishops pleasure This is a crossing of Christs Institution who made them equal neither is it any more wonder that the Bishops practice should cross his own Exhortation then that he should cross the Scripture read on that occasion His third Topick is the ordained Persons Oath to miâ—ister Word and Sacraments and Discipline as this Realm hath received the same Here Discipline is pro forma mentioned but the following words shew the meaning for this Realm hath not received Christ's Discipline to be exercised by the Officers into whose hands he put it but the Dr. acknowledgeth little less then I say when he saith That the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop I hope the Reader will by this time see that the Presbyters in the Church of England have not all that power left to them that Christ gave to his Ministers and therefore the English Episcopacy is another kind of Church Government than that which Christ Instituted or the purer primitive times knew Sect. 13. The other thing he proposeth is Sect. 13. to shew what Authority the Bishop hath by his Consecration which he placeth in Government Ordination and Censures and he saith the Church of England did believe that Bishops did succeed the Apostles in these parts of their Office. This I deny not but the Dr. should have proved that the Church of England had ground to believe so Mr. Bs. concession will not oblige us to be of the same mind that she did believe so I am not convinced from what he bringeth in proof of it but the contrary I have proved above wherefore I shall take no further notice of this Section except to examine his notion p. 269. on which he seemeth to value himself very highly it is that in the Apostles times they managed the Government of the Church themselves and therefore there was no Bishop but Bishâ—ps and Presbyters were one but as the Apostles went off Bishops came to be setled in the several Churchs whom the Apostles setled some sooner some later if which saith he we have an incontrouleable evidence in Timothy and Titus And by this he would reconcile the
different Testimonies of Antiquity the Succession of Bishops from the Apostles time being hereby secured for which Irenaeus Tertullian and Cyprian stand and with this consisteth all that Jerom and Epiphemus say of the different settlement of Churches at first to all this I repone these few things 1. Is is most false that the Apostles managed Church Government by themselves while they lived the contrary I have proved as to Ordination and Excommunication in Corintâ— and Thâ—ssalâ—niâ—a that these were in the Hands of ordinary Officers tho superintended by the Apostles 2. That they setled Bishops any where either in their own time or left order for it to be done after their decease is also false The incontroullable evidence of it that the Dr. talketh of is asserted duro ore for he knoweth it is controulled beyond what he or any man can refute to wit that Tim. and Tit. were no Diocesan Bishops is proved by our Writers and all the Arguments that are brought for their being such fully answered This confidence without Argument is unbecoming so learned a Man he hinteth an Argument for his Assertion to wit that the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist This we deny the Office of an Evangelist was to Teach or Govern by a deputation from the Apostles he saith Thâ—ir removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few I wish he had instanced in one He confesseth by this Tim. and Tit. were not such and for unfixed Bishops we read of none such either in Scripture or Antiquity 3. Neither can this reconcile the Testimonies of Antiquity as he would have it for it doth not answer what Jerom Augustine Chrisostom and others say of the Divine institution of parity neither is it true that Irenaeus Tertulian and Cyprian are for Diocesan Bishops Sect. 14. The Dr. proceedeth now Sect. 14. to the third thing that he had undertaken to prove p. 244 to wit that the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churchs doth not overthrow their Constitution In this I shall not oppose him and therefore I shall only consider this matter as a grievance and consider what he saith in Justification of it and not as a ground of Separation and shall pass over what he saith that is of that tendency He saith Presbyters have power in admission to the Lords Supper because none are to be admitted but such as are confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confiâ—med and Presbyters are judges in that because they are to send a list of the Names of the persons to be Confirmed to the Bishop who is to confirm them and this he saith would if rightly observed keep as much purity in that Ordinance as is pretended to in the separate Congregations Ans. This is a poor fence for the Table of the Lord for if one be ready to be confirmed the Presbyter cannot keep him back tho' he was not listed by the Presbyter nor Confirmed by the Bistop and we know many of the worst of men are ready for it Again when one is Confirmed by the Presbyters consent if he prove never so profane or careless the Presbyter cannot debar him the Bishops Confirmation admiteth him let him do what he will. I hope Separate Meetings will not admit every one to the Lords Table that is a Church Member when they fall into gross Sins 2. It is no good way of defending the Presbyters Power in manageing of Christs Ordinances to say that his Testimonie is to be taken about admitting persons to an Ordinance that Christ never instituted to wit Confirmation 3. This is no great evidence of Church Authority in the Presbyter that his Testimony is taken by the Bishop in order to Admission it is the Bishop not the Presbyter that Authoritatively admitteth 4. It is an odd way of Admission to Gods Ordinances not precedented in Scripture nor purer Antiquity that one man should judge of the fitness of a person to be admitted and another should admitt him the Bishop must act implicitly and the Presbyter is only his informer where this way of Discipline had its use we know the Dr. hath yet said nothing to vindicate the power that Christ gave to his Ministers or to justifie the Discipline of the Church of England Sect. 15. Next Sect. 15. He speaketh of the Presbytes power in rejecting these for scandal that have been Church Members and sheweth out of the Rubrick before the Communion that the Parochial Ministers may advertise a scandalous sinner not to come to the Lords Table till he repent and amend and if he continue obstinate â—e may repel him from the Communion yet so as within fourteen days he give account to the Ordinary Ans. This is far from amounting to the power that Christ gave to his Minsters for 1. By what Law of Christ is the Presbyter accountable to the Bishop more then the Bishop is accountable to him Christ made them equal 2. I see no reason why a Presbyter by himself should have power to debar any it should be done by Presbyters in Common the New Testament knoweth no such thing as Excommunication either greater or lesser by a single person except it were by an Apostle But our Bishops think they have such a plenitude of power that they may delegate as much of it as they please to any other person 3. I see the Dr. is at a stand what sort of censure this Act of the Parochial Ministers is it is not the greater Excommunication and he confesseth p. 277. that it is not the lesser Excommunication used in this Church I deny it not to be a Church censure but it is not such as argueth that Power of Discipline in the inflicter of it that Christ hath given to all his Ministers to be exercised by them in Common The Dr. infereth p. 278. from the power of the Presbyter that our Church doth not deprive them of all the necessary and Essential parts of Church Discipline But if it deprive them of any such part in which they may not medle it taketh away that power that Christ hath given them it is a fine Apology for Episcopal Vsurpation that they suffer a Presbyter as their delegate and as he will be accountable to them to do some Acts that they themselves cannot attend whereas Christ gave no more power to a Bishop than to any of the Presbyters Sect. 16. Mr. B. objecteth to the Dr. that it is Actionable by Law if a Parish Minister admonish a person by name not censured by the ordâ—nary to which the Dr. hath two sorry answers 1. What need publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church Discipline lie in that It is enough it be done privately and sheweth that Augustine bid people examine themselves and abstain if they saw cause and the same Augustine saith that Church Discipline may be forborn in some cases in a true Church To this I reply 1. How
will the Dr. reconcile this with what he citeth out of the Rubrick will private dealing with the offender amount to repelling of him from the Communion 2. Discipline is a publick and Authoritative Act and another thing then private dealing with a person the Apostle calleth it a rebuking before all 1 Tim. 5. 20. And it differeth from Preaching in that by Discipline reproofs are applyed to the person in Preaching they are in more general Terms Now how this should be without publick nameing the Man I know not 3. Who doubteth that Augustine did well in what the Dr. alledgeth it must be our practice when Discipline is most strictly exercisâ—d because Discipline cannot reach the secret sins of Men But Augustine never thought that therefore Discipline was not to be publickly and personally inflicted on Offenders and sure Discipline may in some cases be forborn hic num without fault aâ—d where it is fâ—ulâ—ily forborn it doth nullifie the being of a Church yet it must not always be forborn His 2. answer is If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law whether the Minister ought to admonish publickly and debar in that Case Reply why doth the Dr. make the Rubrick and the Law thus to clash especially seeing the Common Prayers and its Rubriâ—k are setled by Law And he doth by this fairly yield that by the constitution of the Church of England now Established by Law a Parish Minister hath no power to keep back any from the Lords Table that hath a mind to come Why then hath he taken so much pains to prove they can do something and at last conclude that this same thing is just nothing parturiunt montes Sect. 17. He frameth an objection to himself Sect. 16. that the neglects and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed To this he hath several Answers The 1. is That the question is whether this destroyeth the being of Parochial Churches this I pass for I think it doth not The 2. is It is easier to complain of this or separate then find out a way to remedy it We propose the Scripture remedy to wit to put it into the hands of the Pastors of the Church in Common The 3. is That therâ— is not that necessity of Church Discipline as in the primitive times the Christian Magistrate taking care to punish scandalous offenders and so to vindicate the honour of the Church And to confirm this he citeth a passage of King Charles the First to the same purpose Thus the Drs. zeal for Episcopacy is swallowed up in the Gulf of Erastianism to what purpose doth he cite Cyprians Tuâ—es petrus and why hath he pleaded so much for Episcopacy even out of these Fathers that lived under Christian Emperors as Augustine Theodoret c. if Church Discipline be at the Magistrates disposal But I see Men will say any thing 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 let the Dr. answer what our Divines have written against Erastus and his followers proving that the Church and Republick are distinct Societies tho made up of the same Persons that Christ hath a visible Mediatory Kingdom in the World that the Rules Laws Punishments and immediate ends of Church-State are different Let him no more tell us of the Church of England but of the Civil Laws of England as that which the Ordinances of Christ are to be dispensed and ordered by I shall not digress to refute this Assertion but Men will be apt to think that this principle doth foully reflect upon Christ and his Apostles who gave all their directions about Chruch Affairs to Church-men and not to the Magistrate Sict 18. His Fourth Answer is that Excommunication by Protestant Divines is not left to a Parochial Church I do not plead for that but against putting it into the Hand of one Man. Neither will it hence follow a Parish Minister and his Elders may exercise no Discipline The Protestant Divines abroad are not of that miâ—d It is false That among us a Minister I mean with his Elders can only admonish not repel from the Lords Supper Why saith he may not our Ministers be obliged to certifie â—he Bishop as well as theirs to certifie the Presbytery Ans. Because Christ gave no power to a Bishop above other Presbyters and Discipline in the Apostolick and Primitive Church was exercised by a single person If the Dr's principle be true I think it is fitter to certifie the Justice of Peace than either of both What he saith of the Affrican Churches is answered above Let him prove that a Bishop by himself exercised discipline in them The Bishop is often named as the Speaker in the Presbytery by the declining of him is meant declining of them The Inconveniences that he allegeth by putting Excommunication into the Hands of a single Congregation we shun by a prudent reserving of that dreadful Ordinance to a meeting of Pastors But if it were done by the meanest Congregational Elder-ship it could hardly be so ill managed and made so ridiculous and contemptible as it is now in the Hands of Bishops or rather their Servants in England It is well known how solemn and terrible it is as practiced which is seldom in Presbyterian Churches and how it hath tamed some stout-hearted Sinners without a Capias or Magistratical power to back it I wonder why the Dr. should use such Arguments as he doth against Parochial Discipline to wit That there are no certain Rules to proceed by no Determination what faults deserve Excommunication no method of Tryal no security against false â—itnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals besides multitudes of other Inconveniences Sure this Author thinketh the Bible of little use to the Church without a Book of Canons such reflections on the Word of God are very unbecoming a part of which is written on purpose to teach Ministers how to behave themselves in the House of God 1 Tim. 3. 15. I hope the Dr's more sober thoughts will satisfie him in all these and therefore I shall give no more particular Answer But he might have considered if the Bishop have directions for all these in the Bible and if he have not his Will must be his Law why may not the Classical and Congregational Presbytery respective take the help of them He thinketh a Parochial Court of Judicature so he is pleased to speak in the Episcopal Stile would prove more Tyranical than any Bishops Court. It may be so if managed by bad men but if they keep within the Rules they profess to go by it will seem Tyrannical to none but stubborn Sinners whose galled Necks cannot bear Christ's Yoke And it could never be so grievous to Mens Persons and Estates as the Bishops Courts for these we medle not with His fifth Answer I say nothing against Sect. 19. He hath yet a further Apology for the want of Parochial Discipline even supposing every one left to their own Consciences as to their
contained in express words The Papists are dull if they cannot out of this principle hammer out a Pope as well as the Doctor can frame a Bishop or Arch-Bishop This Inference as thus loosly set down is no way to be admitted because Christ hath not provided for the unity and preservation of his Church by leaving it to Mens will or wholly to their reason either but by his own Institutions to be wisely managed by the Officers that he hath appointed in his house Unity is then to be preserved Divisions and Heresies to be prevented by the painful and faithful preaching of the Gospel by Christs Ministers in their several particular Charges by private and publick Instructions and Admonitions By their joynt Concurrence in censuring and drawing out the Sword of Discipline against stubborn Offenders These are Christs Institutions and will be effectual when he is pleased to bless them and this blessing we are to expect on his own appointed means not on mens Devices But we deny that Unity in the Church is to be preserved in any way that men in their Wisdom think fit and particularly that it is to be preserved by setting up Arch-Bishops and Bishops in the Church These being none of Christ's means appointed for that end It is often seen that means thus devised of Men by Crossing of Christ's Institution either fail of their end or by mending one evil make a worse Peace and Unity is sometimâ—s and in the case in hand procured to the Church with the bearing down of Piety and shutting out of Purity Sect. 5. I dislike one Particle of that Definition that he giveth of the National Church of England diffusive p. 299. to wit he saith It is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of pastors and people agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm Had he put the word of God insteâ—d of the Laws of this Realm I should have fully assented to this description But against that Particle I have two Exceptions 1. The Civil Law is accidental to the Church and is neither a constituent part of its essence nor a necessary adjunct of it The Church hath been without it and I hope he will not say That if the Laws were taken away the Church is unchurched for that 2. This makeâ—h the Church of England a variable and mutable thing as the Laws of men are for if Presbytery if Anabaptism If Independency Popery Socinianism and what sort of Religion you can name either as to Faith or Worship or Government were established by Law They that are of that way should then be the Church of England which is not only absurd but a dangerous notion in such a critical time as this I hope the Doctor did not design a fair retreat by this if Popery which God forbid should come to be establiâ—hed by Law The Papists were the Church of England and all the Ties that men are under to the Church of England by theâ—r Oaths and Subscriptions should oblige them to be Papists and all the True Sons of the Church must turn with the Law as the Weather-cock doth with the Wind This is like to be pleasing Doctrin to many But I pâ—rceive the Doctors design by this fine new notion is To let men see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from Papists on the one side and Dissenters on the other which makes him wonder at them who cannot tell what is meant by the Church of England If Men wondred much before they may wonder far more now what is meant by the Church of England when they see her painted in so changeable colours as that she may be one thing now and another next year and another the third year and so on The Scripture placeth the Moon under the Churches Feet and the Twelve Stars Apostolick Doctrine on her Head as her cognizance and Glory but the Doctor hath advanced the Moon to her Head that she must be known by it what he will do with the Twelve Stars I know not He is more favourable to the Papists and Dissenters they are to be known by their Conformity or Nonconformity to Scripture not to the Laws of the Land But if Papists or Dissenters should happen to get the Law on their side what will that party be that is now the Church of England It seems the Doctor is fond of this notion for he hath it up again p. 300. to the question how comes it to be one National Church He answereth because it was received by the Common consent of the whole Nation in Parliament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey these Laws And thus he cleareth our Mists about the Church of England He had debated much with Mr. B. owning a Christian Kingdom but not a National Church but here he homologateth all that Mr. B. had said for the Parliament owning the Faith maketh a Christian Kingdom but it is some other thing that maketh a National Church to wit the Collective Body of all the Congregations of a Nation agreeing in the same Faith and Worship and Government as it is held forth in the Word of God. If the Doctor say thiâ— leaveth room for every party to call themselves the Church for all pretend to have the Word on their side I answer This is not to be denied for till the Lord cure our Divisions about truth and about his Ordinances we are not like to come to a decision of that question Who is the Church For all Congregations are parts of the Church and these that are nearest to the Scripture rule are the truest part of the Church The Apostle decided that Controversie who is the Circumcision the Dialect of some in that time for who is the Church not by the Laws of men but by the truth of God that they owned Phil. 3. 3. The Doctor hath found out a new Mark of the Church that Bâ—llarmine hath not though he hath more than enough to wit They that have the Law on their side are the Church Sect. 6. He telleth us that the representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion This is saith not of the Convocation at Westminster but of the Consent of both Convocations Here I observe 1. That the Law of the Land is so constitutive of a Church to this Author that without it there is neither diffusive nor representative Church Then what becometh of the Apostolick Church and that of the first 300 years and of the Greek Churches under the Turk yea and of the Protestant Church of France where their Prince is not only Christian but most Christian And yet his Law does not favour that Church 2. I have shewed before that the Convocation can make no Church National representative The Presbyters and Churches of the Nation being
so insufficiently represented there 3. Neither do I understand how the Consent of two Convocations that never meet personally together can be called a Church or National representative Church I thought a Church had been a Meâ—ting not a consent of men A Personal Concurrence in some Religious Acts not a mental consent about them Bodies are requisite to make a Church as well as Souls Sect. 7. I pleâ—d not for Mr. B's Constitutive Regent part of the Catholick Church though an Oecumenick Counsel if it could be had might better challenge that Name than the Pope and I think Christs Headship over the Catholick Church dâ—th not answer to what is debated about to wit a visible power super-intending all the Inferiour Church powers on earth We own a Catholick diffusive visible Church but wish rather than hope for one representative for we are perswaded the Pope hath no title to such a headship But the question between him and Mr. B. being about a visible representative or regent Head of the National Church of England I have shewed that consent cannot stand in this room and therefore bringeth in the Arch-Bishops Bishops and Presbyters summoned by the Kings Writ whose Conclusions must be enacted by a Parliament Against this National Head I object 1. That it hath no Warrant to represent the Churches of the Nation of which before 2. He seemeth above to make two such Convocations and so there must either be two Churches of England or the one Church of England must be Biceps and so a Monster 3. This consent or Convocation call it what you will is not a regent head of the Church of England it medleth only with makeing rules for Government which is none of the Churches work she is only ministerially to execute Christs Laws but doth not govern by receiving Appeals censuring the Maleversation of inferior ruling Churches inflicting Censures c. Sect. 8. Mr. B. asketh whether the rules that unite the Church of England be Divine or Humane The Dr. answereth Sect. 22. The Church is founded on a Divine Rule but requireth a conformity to the rules that she hath appointed as agreeable to the Word of God. This I conceive is not to answer the question he should have told us in which of the two rules their unity lieth We know that all Churches as well as these of new-New-England which he mentioneth if the Magistrate own them have civil Priviledges annexed to Church Orders but that is still wide from the question whether these Orders be Divine or Humane Doth the Church or do the Churches of new-New-England make Orders for observing Ceremonies in God's Worship devised by Man and place their unity in that It remaineth then still that if the National Unity of the Church of England be made by Divine Rules that either are expresly or by Consequence in Scripture we are members of it and will in all these joyn with it but if they place their unity in observing rules that have no Warrant from Scripture if we cannot joyn with them in so doing we do not separate from them but they in so far separate from us and from all the pure Churches of Christ. Sect. 9. He maintaineth p. 305. against one of his Opponents who had objected That the Church had no power to make Laws about Foederal Rules teaching Signs and Symbols c. That such a Church hath power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the Word of God and that all setled Churches are for this I reply 1. He doth not answer to the Objection I hope all Rules for Order and Decency are not about Foederal Rites and teaching Symbols Ordering the natural Circumstances of Worship comprehendeth the one but not the other 2. It is false that all setled Churches appoint Rules for such Order and Decency as consisteth in Religious Ceremonies teaching Symbols and such like 3. It is also false that all setled Churches appoint Rules of Order and Decency even in the Circumstantials of Religion so as to exclude all from their Priviledges and to incite the Magistrate to punish them who do not conform to these Rules as he alledgeth other Churches use to rule by holding forth light and Perswasives not to impose with rigour and force on the Consciences of men Nor do they concern the Magistrate but where some notable violations of the Law of God otherwise not to be restrained doth require it 4. It is a false supposition that our Imposed Rules about Ceremones are not repugnant to the Word of God but this is not the place of that Debate SECT VI. The Peoples Right of Electing their Pastors THe last of these four Pleas that the Reverend Author ranketh under the first Head and which he alledgeth some make use of for separation is That the people are deprived of their right in the choice of their own Pastors This he proceedeth to Sect. 24. I do not make the depriving the people of this power a cause of separation though I reckon it a notable Grievance and earnestly desire a redress of it and pray that the Lord may move the Hearts of Rulers to defend the people in this their Right against them that take it from them But our work is now to defend this Right of the Members of the Church against the Doctor 's Assaults But before I come to this I shall shew 1. What this Right is that they have in Electing their Pastors 2. From whom they Derive it 3. What ground we have to think that they have such a Right Sect. 2. To shew what this Right is I assert 1. That the people have no Right to bestow the Benefice on their Pastor nor to elect him to it unless either it be their own gift or the giver of it hath transferred that power on them It is Election to the Office not to the Benefice that we debate about which if the Doctor had considered he might have spared a great deal of his following Discourse It is true the Magistrate ought to provide for the Church so as the person regularly chosen may enjoy the Benefice but if the Magistrate please to reserve it to his own disposing there is no Remedy the people must either chuse the man that may have the maintenance if he be tollerably qualified or they must provide for him themselves And so when a Patron giveth a Maintenance on these terms That he have the chusing of the person who shall enjoy it the Church should either reject it and provide for their Minister another way or chuse the person that the Patron presenteth But this Patronage is a sad Grievance to the Church devised in Satan's Kitchen saith Beza confess fid c. 35. it is an oppressing of people in their Spiritual Rights and in that which concerneth their Souls A greater bondage than if the whole Parish were obliged to eat nothing but what the Patron pleaseth And it had been less blame-worthy if these Donors of Church Livings had kept their Gift
Priest that is opeâ—ly so yet he may present a Protestant in Masquerade or one of the meanest of men for parts and other qualities of a Minister which it is known they often do when yet the Law of the Land can haâ—dly reâ—ch the Man. And a Debauched Patron may present one who will not reprove him too severely who yet may have qualifications to satisfie the Law. But the dissenâ—ions that arise among a divided people may be remedied by Church Dâ—scipline or if they break out into external disorders by the Magistrate 3. Bâ—cause saith he other reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable preteâ—ce Answ. Mens Authority must not preponderate with us against that of Christ. He proveth what he saith 1. By Beza declaiming against popular Election see this in Bâ—z Ep. 83. Answ. Beza speaketh only against Election by the people without their Church-guides to manage them in that action The Lutheran Churches that he next addeth are no Examples to us Their way is much applauded by the Church of England men much more then the way of Englâ—nd is by them For as Pezel melâ—fic â—ist part 3. p. 345. observeth none did more fiercely persecute the Exiles in Qu. Mary's days than they did in Denmark Lubeck Rostoch and especially at Hamburgh The Salvo of the Synod of Dort shewâ—th that they did not allow Patronages but must proceed warily in removing them which hath been the case of other Churches but maketh against the Doctâ—r's opinion not foâ— it That the Ministers in France or the Council of State at Genâ—va chuse Ministers and obtrude them on the people without their consent we deny Sect. 28. I have by what is said preoccupied most of the Doctor 's Reasons against Mr. B. contained Sect. 26. I shall only take notice of a few things We make void no Laws about Patronage but so far as they respect the peoples right of chusing a pastor for their Souls and thus far they are cassate by the Laws of â—hrist As to Temple and Tythes as he speaks we medle not with Laws about them only we wish the removing of them as a Griâ—vance and that Rulers would provide for the Church in a way that the peoples right of Elâ—ction might not be hindered nor restrained in its Exercise Mr. B. objecteth p. 330. That the Patron by giving a right to Temple and Tythes doth not make the man a Minister to that peopleâ— Souls and the Parliament cannot dispose of peoples Souls The Doctor instead of an Answer giveth the meaning of this that if the people be humersome and factious they may run after whom they please in opposition to Laws This is ad populum fâ—lâ—ras but no fair way of Arguing The true meaning is that though the Paâ—non by Law may give a man a title to the Temple and Tythes and the people can neither keep him out of the Church nor deny to pay his dues yet the Law cannot make him their Pastor without their consent I do not say they should run after another it is fit they should consent to a tolerable person so imposed on them for peace sake yet it is not the Law but their consent that maketh him their Minister That Anabaptists Quakâ—rs and Papists will put in for a share in this priviledge is but a mâ—an objection for Christ hath given people power to chuse sound Pastors not whom they will. The Doctor asketh Whether all must have equal Votes then the worst who are the most part will chuse one like themselves Answ. This is to be regulated by the Guides of the Church the worst are to be instructed yea and censured if need be and if they chuse a bad man the Pastors are not to ordain him He alledgeth few are competent Judges Answ. Many can judge tolerably and they who cannot are to be guided by others but the matter is not wholly left to their judgment the Elected man being to be tryed by the Eldership He enlargeth on the tumulâ—s and strifs in popular Elections This hath been abundantly answered above That the matter is devolved on a few doth not take away the right of others who are willing to be advised by these few The Doctor is as certain that Christ never gave people such an unalterable right as he is that he designed Peace and Unity in the Church This certainty is built on no good grounds and therefore amounteth to no more but fancy I have shewed ground for a contrary perswasion and a way that Christ hath laid down for peace consistent with this right SECT VII Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church and First of the Liturgy THe Reverend Author is now at last Sect. 26. come to that which I reckon the main plea for our withdrawing from the Communion of the Church of England to wit the Terms of Communion that she imposeth on all that shall partake with her in the Ordinances of God which we count unlawful and therefore cannot submit to them the Church imposeth them so as none are permitted to joyn with her who forbear them and therâ—fore we cannot partake without them This putteth us on a necessity of forbearing Communion with her and the necessity of Worshipping God doth not suffer us to live without the Ordinances and thence resulteth a necessity of keeping sepâ—rate meetings which our Brethren blame us for and we blame them for forâ—ing us to it against our will. If these Terms of Communion upon due examination prove lawful we refuse not the blame of separation which we think as gâ—eat as they do but if they prove unlawful then doth the blame lie at their door who impose them Yea unbyassed men will say that if the things be but indifferent and of no necessity the Imposers cannot justifie the imposing of them when so sad inconvenience followeth upon them Sect. 2. These Terms of Communion in particular are the constant use of the Liturgy and the Ceremonies which are the Cross in Baptism Kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper and observing of Holy-days that God hath not appointed â—â—her Ceremonies they have which we also dislike but because they are not imposed as Terms of Communion we do not here mention them What is to be said of Godfathers and â—odmothers in Baptism we shall in its place examine The Doctor excuseth himself from saying any thing about the Lituâ—â—y because it hath laâ—ely been so very well defended by a Divine of this Church ciâ—eing on his Margin Dr. Falâ—oner's Vindication of Liturgies and I for the like cause forbear this debate or answering Dr. Falkoner that having been exceeding well done Anno 1681. by the Learned G. F. in his Questions between the Conformist and Nonconformist truly stated and briefly discussed which the Doctor if he had pleased to read the Writings on both sides the neglect of which he blameth us for might have taken notice of before his Third Edition came out 1682. But beside that neither Doctor Falkoner nor any other
hath answered what hath been said against the Liturgy and the use of it in the Anatomy of the Service-Book Interest of words in prayer Smectyminis Jerubbaal's necessity of Reformation and other pieces to which I refer the Reader for satisfaction in this point Although I have made some Collections on this subject yet so much being said by others and neither the Doctor nor any other being pleâ—sed to Answer it I also shall wave this Controversie Only hinting a few of the chief grounds of our Scruple in this matter because the Dr. p. 332 333. chargeth his Answerers with pretending to scruple without giving reason for their Scruples Sect. 3. We do not simply nor generally condemn Forms of Prayer they may be used when that work cannot be tollerably performed without them neither do we condemn joyning in such a way of praying even when the man that chuseth that way might and ought to do otherwise Neither do we scruple joyning in the use of the Liturgy meerly because it is imposed by Authority I know we are misrepresented in all these But 1. We condemn using of set Forms of Prayer either in private or publick without such necessity as that duty cannot be tollerably performed without that help 2. We think it unlawful for the Church or any other to impose on the Ministers of the Gospel the use of a set Form of Praying where there is not absolute necessity 3. We think in the present case of the Church there is no such absolute necessity of that imposition seeing Ministers may be had who are tollerably gifted for their Work And seeing it is Christ's Institution that none but such should be in the Ministery and seeing any Escapes or Indecencies that can be observed in a Ministers Administrations are to be Corrected by the Discipline of the Church which is Christ's way not by imposing a Liturgy which is Mans way 4. We think it unlawful for Ministers who are tollerably gifted for their Work and if they be not such in the judgment of the Church they should lay aside that Work and betake themselves to other Callings To submit to such Impositions or to use such Forms of Prayer 5. What is said of Forms of Prayers let it be also understood of Forms of Preaching Administration of Sacraments and Exhortations at them and of other parts of the Service of God Here we may rationally except Forms of singing praise unto God and that on two Grounds 1. The Scripture hath furnished the Church with such Forms for all cases of a Soul and of the Church in the Book of Psalms which is not done in Prayer and other Adminâ—strations So that these Forms are not humane as other Forms must beâ— 2. The Gift of composing Spiritual Songs fit to be sung in the Church is not to be expected that it should be Commonly given to the Pastors of the Church as the Gifts of Preaching and Praying are given 6. We think it unlawful for people to joyn in Worshipping God by a frame of Service not instituted nor warranted in the Word of God both as to the matter and as to the manner of it 7. The English Service Book is such a frame of Service as is not warranted nor instituted in the Word and so it is unlawful for us to joyn in Worshipping God by it Sect. 4. If we can give good reason for the 2d 4th 6th and 7th of these Assertions sufficient ground will appear for our scrupling the use of the Liturgy imposed as one of the Terms of our Communion with the Church of England For the First of these That Men may not impose set Forms on Gifted Ministers Arguments for this are 1. There is no warrant for such practice if there be it must be either Christ's Command or his Permission or the necessity of it The first nor second is not alledged because no such thing can be proved from the Word Nor the third for such a necessity is contrary to our supposition that the men so imposed on are gifted If it be said the best gifted may slip into unfit expressions Reply This unfitness is either tolerable and so no necessity can arise from that hazard or intoâ—erable and then it is to be cured by Christ's means Church Discipline not by the invention of man. 2. No such imposition nor usage was ever heard of in the Apostolick Church nor in the Primitive Church for 300 years and more and yet there were Ministers subject to Infirmities as Men now are and the Worship of God was by them fitly managed May not the means of securing Worship from abuse serve us that served them Or will we be wiser and mâ—re wary than they That there was any Forms used or imposed in the Apostles times we need not prove the Lord's Prayer is no Instance to the contrary it cannot be made appear that ever it was intended to be a form of words or used as such And for the Primitive times it is evident that when Constantine would help his Souldiers newly come out of Heathenism with a Form he behoved to get some composed which needed not had they then been in the Church Justin Martyr Apol. 2. p. 98. Edition Paris giving account of their publick Exercises on the Lord's day to wit reading Scripture Exhortation Prayer Singing Administration of the Lord's Supper he saith 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That is the Minister sendeth up Prayers and Thanksgivings as he is able then not by Book but his Ability as the Lord furnished him Tertullian Apol. c. 30. saith They prayed in their Assemblies sine monitore quum de pectore and in his Book de Oratiore he sheweth that there are many things to be asked according to every ones occasions the Lord's Prayer being laid as a Foundation where the true use of the Lord's prayer note that by the way is hinted to wit to be a Directory not a Form. Socrates Hist. Eccles. lib. 5. c. 21. which is wholly spent in shewing what diversity of usages was in the Primitive times in divers places and how little weight was laid on uniformity the great Argument for the Common-prayer hath these words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is generally and every where in all Religions in Prayer there are not two to be found that agree in one which surely must be meant of Agreement in the same words Sect. 5. A third Argument for this is such imposing doth thwart one great design of Prayer in publick which is to lay out before the Lord all the several cases of the people or the Church their sins and wants which do so vary that no Book can suit them all I am sure ours doth not If it be answerâ—d thâ—s design may be answered by leaving a liberty to Ministâ—rs sometimes as afâ—er Sermon 〈◊〉 use their gifts I reply that this Lâ—berty doth frustrate the design of set prayer which is to prevent venting of error and indecency is not that hazard in permitting prayer after Sermon as well
the Command of Superiors in that sense Sect. 12. This next Proof is from the general sense of the Jews p. 342. for this he sheweth That Mr. A. himself quoteth several Passages of the Talmudists to prove That they equalled their Traditions with the Commands of God and hâ—nce inferreth that this was not look't â—n as an indifferent Ceremony but as a thing whose omission brought guilt on the Conscience The former Answer doth fully take away the force of all that he here discourseth to wit the Jews thought the Conscience defiled by such omission after the thing was imposed by the Authority of the Church not before so our Prelatists in reference to the Ceremonies Wherefore Mr. A. is far from overturning all the rest of his Discourse by this one saying as the Dr. alleadgeth I well know what Sanctity the Rabbies placed in the strict Observance of these things and therefore I contradict none of his Citations out of them But all this Sanctity they founded not only natural or antecedent goodness of the things observed but on the great duty of Obedience to the Orders of the Church in which our Brethren are not much inferiour to them He telleth us that they said Whosoever disesteemeth this Custom deserveth not only Excommunication but Death too and what less do the Prelatists say of omitting the Ceremonies except that it is not yet made death by the Law though the cruel usage that many have met with on this account hath brought them to their death I could tell you of Rabbies in the Church of Eâ—gland that talk as high against not observing the Ceremonies as ever the Jewish Rabbies did against not observing their Washings He admireth p. 344. That Mr. A. would make People believe that this was no more but an indifferent Ceremony among the Jews and required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are A. He need not admire for none of us say so of that Washing when imposed and he cannot prove that it was any other but indifferent to them before imposition as our Ceremonies are That washing was not imposed for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are a Reason of the difference is already given to wit That it was an addition to Christ's Ceremonies for taking away Uncleanness Ours are an addition to Christ's Institution for honouring Him and edifying of Souls Sect. 13. He proceedeth Sect. 28. to enlarge and enforce this Truth by considering the Popish Ceremonies and their opinion of washing away Sin and Justification by them And for this he citeth many Authors all which pains might have been spared For this Argument doth not at all differ from what he hath said abouâ— the Jews opinion of their Washings and needeth no other Answer All the Efficacy that Papists attribute to their Ceremonies is consequent to and dependent on their being injoyned by the Church None of them say that they have such Efficacy in themselves and that they attribute taking away of sin to them ariseth from the opinion they have of the Merit of good Works which the Church of England doth not maintain The Church of England maketh them good Works but denieth their Merit because she denieth that even to the Works that God hath commanded The Papists do but make them good Works also and that they think them meritorious is from this their opinion that all good Works are such and not from an opinion that they can do such Feats by any power in themselves without Institution They ascribe spiritual Effects to them saith he so do you to your Ceremonies as stirring up of dull Minds engaging the Soul to God c. I think the Cross hath no more Efficacy for this without a Divine Institution that it has to drive away Devils as the Papists alledge Amesius ought not to have been charged with disingenuity by the Doctor on this ground He doth not equal the Evil of the English Ceremonies with these of Rome but that this Church hath no more power to make them Religious Rites than that hath to make them Causes of Grace He telleth us pag. 346. That our Church receiveth them no otherwise than as purged from Popish Superstition and for this citeth Praef. to Common-Prayer and Can. 30. Answer Neither the Dr. nor his Church will be condemned if they may be their own Judges it is Amicum Testimonium I confess they have purged out much Popish Superstition out of them but to purge out all is impossible The things themselves as stated in the Worship of God without His Institution being such Whatever the Dr. hath gained to his Cause by this Discourse our Cause gaineth from it a good Argument against the Ceremonies viz. That these things being unnecessary in themselves that have been so grosly abused to Idolatry and Superstition ought not to be brought into God's Worship by them who abhor that way nor indeed can they without much scandal But of this and other Arguments I have treated elsewhere Sect. 14. His second way how Ceremonies become parts of Divine Worship he hath pag. 347. viz. If they be supposed to be unalterable and obligatory to the Consciences of all Christians And this he purgeth the Church of England from What is already said doth abundantly refute this for I have shewed that Ceremonies may be parts tho bad ones of Worship without this and the former too And indeed if this were necessary to make them parts of Worship none of the Popish Ceremonies were such for the Pope will not part with his Power of altering the Worship of God as he pleaseth more than the English Convocation will And I believe there was never Church in the world that held That she could injoyn what God had not injoyned unalterable and so as to bind all Christians But still the Doctor as his Cause doth necessitate every Defender of it to do maketh an Inconsistency and Irreconcileableness between the opinion of the Church about the Ceremonies and their Practice in reference to them If they be alterable why will ye rather ruine your Brethren hazard Souls rend the Church than alter them If they bind not our Consciences why do ye charge us with Sin for refusing them If they bind not all men why is the Worship of other Churches so cryed out upon by many of your Church Sect. 15. The Reverend Dr. cometh now Sect. 29. to examine the Charge against the Church and bringeth the Arguments of his Adversaries that tend to prove the Ceremonies to be parts of Worship and answereth them It is here to be observed that the Arguments that he mentioneth are but some of many that we use against the Ceremonies And these not they that are most directly against them Mr. A. Argueth thus An outward visible Sign of inward invisible Grace whereby a Person is dedicated to a Profession of and Subjection to the Redeemer is a substantial part of Worship The Dr. Answereth An outward visible Sign representing between men the duty or engagement of another is no
mean and instrument of conveying grace to men Ergo ex concessis it is unlawful to be appointed by men The antecedent I prove for the Church maketh her Ceremonies to stir up the dull minds of men and this in particular to be a token that hâ—reafter the party baptized shall not be ashamed of Christ therefore it must be a mean of stirring up one to own Christ and is not this the very use of Baptism What difference is there but that the one is a mean appointed by God for conveying the grace that he hath promised the other is a mean appointed by man for the same end Sect. 24. The Dr. chargeth the Church of Rome with Insolence in appointing Rites for applying the Merits of Christ and saith This is the only possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments Answer Though we have many other Arguments against the Ceremonies than that they are Sacraments of mens making yet we will not pass even from that Argument The Drs. assertion 〈…〉 false for a Sacrament is a visible Sign of invâ—siâ—le Grace â—nd if men appoint signs of their own for representing or conveying Grace they make new Sacraments tho' they do not intend by these to apply Christs Merit Sacraments are for applying the Spirit of Christ as well as for applying the Merit of Christ and therefore if men pretend to make signs for the one tho' not for the other they make new Sacraments We do not say that every significant Custom in a Church is to pass for a new Sacrament as the Dr. would make us say Sitting at the Sacrament putting off the hat in Prayer c. which he paralleth with the Ceremonies are quite of another nature being Actions made sit by civil Custom and for their fitness used in worship but not appropriated to it Mr. B. objecteth against the Cross being a bare Rite of admission that the obligation is to the Common Duties of Christianity The Dr. Answereth And is not every Church-Member bound to perform these How this Answereth the Objection I see not For the Question is not what Church-Members are obliged to but when Christ hath appointed a Sacramental sign to represent the common duties of Christianity whether the Church may appoint another sign for the same end and join that sign with Christ's sign to be performed with it with the same Solemnity and in the same Office of divine worship He saith that To shew that Crossing is a solemn Rite of Admission the Church alloweth it to be forborn in private Baptism Answer 1. This only sheweth it to be a solemn action not that it is a solemn rite of admission for all this it may be a solemn Sacrament or a solemn piece of other worship 2. This allowance of the Church doth quite cross the Drs. Conceit of its being a Rite of admission into the Church of England for if it were so look't on the Church would rather injoin it then because without it the person baptised should not at all be admitted into the Church and so be no Member of it and surely the Rite of administration to the Church is more needful where admission into the universal Church to wit Baptism is more questionable whether it hath been done or not as in private Baptism than where it is publick and known to all To Mr. B's Objection That Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient and therefore we need not devise more He Answereth If it be lawful the Church is to judge of the Expediency and to appoint other Rites that do not encroach on the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Reply 1. Mr. B. and others assert and prove the unlawfulness of these Rites as the Dr. well knoweth wherefore he might well have expounded We need not devise by We ought not devise 2. There are other ways how mens Rites may encroach on Christ's Institutions than by challenging any effect peculiar to them when as they are appropriated to Religion used in or amidst Religious Exercises and for Religious Ends. 3. Dedicating a person to God engaging the Soul to own Christ and such like are effects peculiar to Christ's Institutions for they are instituted for these ends and nothing else hath any efficacy that way being destitute of the promise of a Blessing Wherefore even on that account and by his own Confession our Ceremonies import a charging of God's Ordinances with insufficiency Sect. 25. The rest of his debate with Mr. B. pag. 353 354. I wave it being ad hominem only on a principle of Mr. B's that I allow not He pleadeth against Mr. B. pag. 355. that the sign of the Cross if it had Christ's Institution would be a Sacrament because then it should have promises annexed and the nature of it quite changed and the Minister should sing in Christ's Name not in the Church's Answer The Nature of it would be then changed no doubt because it would be a true Sacrament and have the annexed Blessing but there would be no other Change from what it now is than what dependeth upon the Authority by which it is instituted But that doth not hinder it to be now a Mock Sacrament and to have as much of a Sacrament as is possible without divine institution The Ministers signing now in the name of the Church which he then would do in the Name of Christ saith no more but that in the one case it is Christ's Ordinance but in the other case it is Mans Ordinance but doth not hinder it in that case to be a humane Sacrament Whether Mr. B. do misrepresent the Popish Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments or not which the Doctor by many Testimonies endeavoureth to prove pag. 357 358. is not much to our business The Doctor saith That if by the Protestant Doctrine the Sacraments do at all convey Grace whatever way it be done it sheweth that the sign of the Cross-can never be advanced to that Dignity since in no sence it is held to be an Instrument for conveying of Grace Answer It is true it is by this excluded from being a true Sacrament But it may for all that be a false Sacrament for though it be not their opinion that it conveyeth Grace yet it is by them held to be a mean of stirring up the mind and engaging the Soul to these Acts to which nothing but the Grace of God can effectually help a person I hope the Doctors Conclusion of this debate with Mr. B. may now appear to be groundless to wit That this Phrase of a new Sacrament is groundless and only invented to amuse People Neither can I understand what sort of people these should be who have been satisfied against all the other Arguments which he calleth conveying their prejudices and have so stuck at this stumbling block for we bring many Arguments against the Ceremonies that more weight is to be laid on though this wanteth not its force Sect. 26.
and therefore much more than such a foolish Ceremony 3. If this Argument prove any thing it would make it our duty rather to bow to him when his name is mentioned in Blasphemy or Swearing Then such a Testimony is more needful than when all present are worshiping him Sect. 29. Argument 3. It is superstitious Worship not only on the account of its not being commanded but also because it is impossible to make that use of a name without ascribing more to it than is due to a word or any external sign I know our Brethren will deny all respect to the word and affirm that it is only the Person of the Redeemer that they reverence And I am obliged to believe that they make not the name the Objectum Terminans of any part of their Worship yet the setting such a mark of discrimination on that name from others and giving such Reverence on that occasion is such a violent presumption of some inward Respect to that word rather than to another of equal Excellency that a man ought not to believe himself when he denyeth it of himself much less are others obliged to believe him Especially the Church-Guides who impose this must either see some Reason for it or none if none it is Church-Tyranny to impose so arbitrarily in the Worship of God If they see a Reason that Reason cannot shun to be superstitious to wit a making a difference in this name from others where there is no such difference And if it were possible to free the mind of superstitious Conceits in this matter it is altogether impossible to free the action from aâ—candalous appearance of superstition for what other Construction can the Beholder put on bowing so many times at the recurrent mention of a word when no such thing is done at the mention of other words of the same signification May not one rationally think that it is not the thing signified but the sound of the word that moveth men when they see them bow at that word and not at another that expresseth the same thing If I see a man frighted at the hearing the word Eusis and not moved at hearing Gladius I have reason to think that it is not the apprehension of a Sword which is signified by both words that doth so move him but some Antipathy he hath at the sound of the word Eâ—sis This is easily applyed Sect. 30. Argument 4. It is impossible to observe this usage punctually without having the mind diverted from that attention to the other Acts of Religion that is fit Men may talk what they will but common Experience will convince the unbyassed that it is impossible to hear with serious attention toward the matter read or otherwise spoken to go along with it in the heart and at the same time to be ready at the sound of the word Jesus to catch it and to use the Reverence required I appeal to the Experience of them who do seriously mind this bowing whether their mind be not taken up with thoughts about the word waiting for it before they hear it so as they cannot at the same time mind what else is spoken as they ought Here we may apply that Adage Vides aliquem de vocibus solicitum scito animum in pusillis occupatum The mind cannot be intent on two things at once such as are one single word and the matter of a coherent Discourse Argument 5. It is an usage unknown to the Apostolick purest Primitive Times of the Church yea it is amongst the most novel Inventions of the later and more corrupted Times of the Church under the Anti-Christian Apostacy no mention of it till the middle of the 13th Century It was never injoined till Concil Lugdunens 1273. and Basiliens 1431. Argument 6th It hath been grosly abused to Superstition and Idolatry in the Popish Church and therefore being confessed to be an indifferent thing it ought to be abolished In a Council at Auspurg this bowing is injoined at the name of the body and blood of Christ of the Virgin Mary and several others of their 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Concil Lugdun it is injoined chiefly in the Mass. It argueth a strange respect to that way thus to symbolize with them in their usages that have no warrant in the word and by so doing to differ from all Protestant Churches Sect. 31. I come now to attend the Doctor 's debate with Mr. A. about this matter where I am troubled to find the Dr. treating his Adversary with such Contempt and indecent Reflections on his learning which maketh him be honoured in the eyes of men as able to discern as they who despise him telleth us He had before defenced these things as required by the Church against Papists and Mr. A. borroweth their Weapons but doth not so well manage them We give the Author his due Praise for his learned Labours against the Papists but are not thereby obliged to be silent when he opposeth any of the Truths of God But I cannot understand how Mr. A. should borrow the Popish Weapons in this Controversy seeing the Papists and the Doctor are in this matter 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 and Mr. A. doth oppose them both It is true a Non-conformist may say that Papists have as good reason for their Ceremonies as the Church of England for hers But this is not to use their Weapons for we think neither hath reason on their side Mr. A. blameth the Doctor in answering his Popish Adversary for saying That bowing at the name of Jesus is no more than going to Church at tolling of a Bell. To which Mr. A. replyeth That it is Motivum cultus at least and so more than the tolling of a Bell to call people to Church and he addeth that an Image may as well give warning to the eye to worship as a Bell to the ear Here Mr. A. is far from either pleading for Popish Tenets or using Popish Weapons but sheweth the absurdity of the Doctor 's opinion by a parallel opinion of the Papists which the Dr. condemneth which is a good way of reasoning ad hominem and needed not be so cryed out against The Dr. giveth some good Reasons why Images are not to be used in worship but he doth not touch the Point in hand between him and Mr. A. who never intended to parallel a Bell and Images any further than this that a Bell in the Act of Worship the sound of the word Jesus is in the same quality must be Motivum cultus and so is an Image Therefore if an Image not only on other accounts that the Dr. mentioneth but even on account of this lower use of it its being motivum cultus be evil so is the sound of the word Jesus Sect. 32. The Dr. exposeth Mr. A. as a crackt delirious man for saying that the Papists go too far in preserring an Image higher than to be motivum cultus but the question is whether they do not sin in applying
it to this lower use to make it an ordinary stated motive to Worship And after if men sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship yet how shall we excuse our own adorations Sure the application of all this to the present Controversy is not so hard to be understood but that a man whose wit is not a wool-gathering may see these are not the words of a delirious man. He doth not charge the Church of England with using Images but with using the sound of a word to the same purpose with the lower use that Papists ascribe to Images and inferreth that if the one be a sin so is the other and the one may as lawfully be done as the other The adorations he speaketh of are worshipping God by the help of the sound of that word as a motivum cultus and therefore there is no need of proving that ye Worship any other beside God before ye need excuse your adorations The Dr. confesseth page 361. that their Church never denied that men sin in making Images a stated motive of Worship Hence Mr. A. inferreth that their Church sinneth in making the sound of a word a stated motive of Worship but this the Dr. is not pleased to take notice of But when Mr. A. asserteth that they may bring in Images with equal reason the Dr. denieth that we may worship Images on the same reason that we perform external adoration to Jesus at the mention of his Name still he will not take notice wherein the parallel and consequently the strength of the reason lieth to wit in making Images a motive of worship and making a word such but the Dr. parallelleth making Images the object of Worship and making the word Jesus the occasion only of it which is to seek subterfuges not to stand to the argument insisted on Sect. 33. Mr. A. giveth a difference between the tolling of a Bell to call People to Church and the word Jesus occasioning our bowing that the one is out of worship the other in it when we should be intent on devotion In answering this the Dr. saith They contend not for the seasonableness of this bowing when they are in other acts of devotion and immediate application to God but about the lawfulness of it in repeating the Lessons or the Creed Reply 1. I have before shewed that this is not the sense of the Church which injoineth it in time of Divine Service which I hope taketh in prayer yea when ever that Name is mentioned in the Church wherefore the Dr. must be sore put to it when he must defend the Church by contradicting her and setting up his private opinion that he is forced upon against her Authentick and publick Records 2. Here are two distinctions hinted equally useless to this design The first is he pleadeth not for the seasonableness but for the lawfulness of this usage but if it be unseasonable even at these times that he will have it used then it is also unlawful seeing duties acceptable to God must be done in their season 3. The other distinction is it is not to be done in acts of devotion and immediate application to God but in the Lessons and Creed I desire to know whether hearing the Word read and hearing the Articles of our Faith rehearsed in a solemn manner while we are about Worshipping God be not acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God as well as prayer which he seemeth to understand by that expression The word read as well as preached Heb. 4. 2. should be mixed with Faith and so should the hearing the Articles of our Faith and is not Faith in its exercise Devotion and an immediate Application to God At least it cannot be denied that serious exercise of the whole Soul is requisite in these exercises as well as in that which he will call Devotion and therefore it must be as unseasonable to be diverted by waiting for the fall of a Word in the one exercise as in the other 4. The Dr. taketh no notice of the main strength of Mr. A's reason to wit that the toll of the Bell is out of Worship the sound of the Word in it The one is in statu Civili or Communi the other in statu Religioso For I hope he will not deny these exercises in which this bowing is to be used to be Religious acts He saith it signifieth nothing to this purpose whether persons be in the Church or out of if when the Bell rings for in the same page he Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell which ringeth in Worship and if the object of their Worship were right it would make him better understand the parallel Reply It is a rash assertion to say there is no difference between the Bell ringing when People are in the Church and when they are out of it he must mean when they are in the act of Worship and when not otherwise what he saith is impertinent for the one is motivum Cultus and in status Religioso the other not It is true Mr. A. mentioneth the Mass-bell in the next page but he parallelleth it with the sound of the VVord Jesus both being a stated motive of Worship and therefore that is mentioned by the Dr. to no purpose Sect. 34. He saith when it is said in the Injunctions that we must bow at mentioning the Name Jesus in divine Service or when it is otherwise in the Church pronounced Yet saith he by the manner of shewing this reverence viz. with lowliness of courtesy and uncovering the heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other act of devotion Answer By this way of commenting he may easily make the Church say whatever he pleaseth for this is to contradict the Text by his Commentary Let him tell us when is that Name pronounced in the Church and yet People at no other act of Devotion This manner of reverence required proveth nothing for it is no wonder to hear them speak inconsistencies in requiring low courtesy and uncovering of the head in time of Devotion when the head is already uncovered who injoin the same in the Church out of that Devotion when that VVord is mentioned tho' heads be already uncovered as all must be in time of Divine Service by Can. 18. the same that injoineth this Bowing He saith it giveth no interruption to Devotion But doth it give none to other parts of Worship which he is not pleased to call Devotion He will still have it lawful as long as the object of Worship is true the mention of this Name only expresseth the time as the Bell doth of going to Church Answer It will then follow that if Papists will only Worship God not the Image and use it only as a stated motive of Worship that were lawful too But he considereth not that the manner and mean of Worship may be sinful when the object to which it is directed is true and that this is so is
clear from what hath been said I have also shewed how irrational it is to parallel the Bell to call People together with a sign stated in Worship to stirr up or put in mind of it what Mr. A. objecteth that there is more need of this reverence in our ordinary converse I have touched before The Dr. maketh it a strange crossness to deny it in Worship and then plead for it in other cases But Mr. A. doth not plead for it in any case but useth this as a good reason to shew the folly of their imposition But enough of this Sect. 35. The rest of his debate with Mr. A. may soon be dispatched Mr. A. commendeth the moderation of the Canon 640. not imposing Worship toward the East or Altar but leaving it indifferent and pleadeth for the same Indulgence in other rites as little necessary in themselves as Crossing Kneeling c. according to the Apostles rule that differing parties should not judge nor censure one another Rom. 14. 3. The Dr. in his answer bringeth two reasons of this different practice one is the one sort of things were settled at the Reformation not so the other another is the one is settled by Law the other not It is strange the Dr. should lay weight on either or both of these reasons in opposition to the Apostles command of forbearance for the question still recurreth on the first setler of these either by Law or otherwise Why did they impose things so severely that the Apostle would have us bear with one another in And then it recoileth on the upholders of this unwarantable settlement Why do they continue such impositions as may be for-born and divide the Church by so doing We do prove these things unlawful as the Dr. requireth but tho' we should fail in that proof their counting them indifferent is enough to condemn such severe imposing of them He saith page 364. that Mr. A. thinketh the rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then Papists may come in for a share as to worshipping the Host Images c. Had Mr. A. talked at this rate the Dr. would as he doth on less ground have said his fancy had been disordered and all things were not right somewhere Did ever Mr. A. or any of us say this or words to that effect We say this of things indifferent not of things about which Christians differ and so I hope the Papists are sufficiently shut out Sect. 36. VVhen Mr. A. or any of us blame the leading Church-men for using these things that are not imposed we make this no grounds of Separation as the Dr. would insinuate VVhat Mr. A. saith of disagreeing in a circustantial part of VVorship is not the conclusion of his discourse to prove a disagreement in substantial parts of Worship but an Antithesis sufficiently proved to the Dr's assertion that all our difference was about circumstances of VVorship and he makes it appear that not only they with the Dissenters but they among themselves did so disagree while some of them Bow to the Altar others not If this be not a part of VVorship I see not how Bowing to an Image can be called such He further blameth Mr. A. page 365. at the end for making a sort of middle things able to justify Separation between Substantial parts of VVorship and meer Circumstantials And the Dr. doth most unjustly inferr from thence that Separation is justified by things that are neither Substantial nor Circumstantial parts of VVorship and no part of it at all For he will not consider that tho' Mr. A. doth not make the Ceremonies meer Circumstantials yet he maketh them Circumstantial parts of VVorship that is parts of VVorship without which all that VVorship that Christ hath instituted is confessed to be intire And if Mr. A. do also go about to prove that the Ceremonies are made by the Church-men Substantial parts of VVorship it is no incoherency in him but in them who talk so variously of these rites sometimes as the veriest trifles that can be sometimes as so much conducing to the Glory and Decency of Gospel-VVorship The truth is Substantial parts of VVorship is a term of the Drs. as Mr. A. telleth him none of ours and therefore if we do not apply it sometimes to his mind let him blame himself for not making it more intelligible to us by his explication of it SECT IX The other Pleas pretended for Separation VVE come now with the Dr. to the next Plea used for Separation to wit that the Dissenters are still unsatisfied in their Consciences about the Churches terms of Communion and the Church excommunicateth them and therefore they cannot join He is pleased to join these two tho' very distinct yet he prosecuteth them severally For the latter which he speaketh first of the Dissenters Plea that he is pleased to take off is the Excommunication ipso facto by the Canon 6. that we all lye under Before I consider his answer to this I must tell him of two things that have more weight to justify our Separation than that Canonical Excommunication 1. That many thousands of us are otherwise Excommunicated for our non-compliance with the Ceremonies even by the personal application and publishing of the sentence against us yea multitudes may not go to Church if they would being under the Writ de capiendo Excommunicato and daily watched for to be apprehended this putteth on us a forcible necessity of Non-communion and conscience of Worshipping God and waiting on the means of Grace engageth us to meet privately to enjoy these ordinances that we cannot have publickly The second thing is even they who are not under the sentence of Excommunication yet are materially Excommunicated by your Church if they will not comply with your Ceremonies for we can have none of the Sacraments without them and your Canon excludeth us out of the Church unless we Bow at the Name of Jesus So that we cannot if we never so fain would enjoy God's Ordinances among you without partaking your Ceremonies Wherefore all the blame that can be cast on us is not using the Ceremonies From which we have sufficiently cleared our selves in the eyes of unby-assed Men all that followeth on this is not to be charged on us but on the rigour of your Church which forceth us from among them Sect. 2. The Dr. answereth to the Plea from the Canonical Excommunion Sect. 33. page 367. that that Excommunication is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of the things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it and he blameth Mr. B. as misciting the words of the Canon Wherefore I shall set down the whole Canon it is the Can. 6. of the Convocation 1603. Whosoever shall hereafter affirm that the Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England by Law Established are wicked anti-christian or superstitious or such as being commanded
Commanded by God nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature and dictated by it nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship but is only imposed by the Will of man is unlawful to be used in that Worship but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such Ergo c. The major is clear for that must in that case be Will-worship the minor is proved by what is said and the conclusion followeth â—iâ—syllogistica Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolick and purest Primitive Church Christ with his Disciples Sate or leaned they used the table gesture then made decent by civil custom and yet they used as much humility in receiving and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do or can In after Ages this Practice was not used it is well known that in Tertullians time and till the beginning of the Fifth Century they did not use to Kneel on any Lords Day between Easter and Pentecost so much as at Prayer and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it how then did they make the Communion Kneeling A third ground is this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature with a Religious respect to the Creature but this is unlawful c. The first proposition is clear for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them that we Kneel and it will not be denyed that we there adore God Religiously The second proposition I prove because Protestants do generaly condemn Praying before an Image as on other accounts so on this because it is an adoring of God before a Creature with a Religious respect to it let our Brethren shew us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship as they do the other they deny that they give any Worship to the Image as we do with reference to the Elements A fourth Ground is this Practice as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent hath been grosly abused to Idolatry the Papists in the same external way worshiping the Hoste And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christs Bodily presence in the Sacrament and the Papists profess that if they did not believe that they would not so Kneel and is it fit that we should so symbolize with them which by this Practice we do to that degree that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs by the spectators of both These grounds I have but hinted being spoken to more largely by others Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies she may impose some use of Images c. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages All this discourse might have been waved for neither Mr. A. nor any of us did ever make that a ground of Separation tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground If they will remove the present Ceremonies we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them nor out of fear of what may come Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth and then refuteth is Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface he should have said Epistle Dedicatory to Mischief of Impositions but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is ad hominem against the Dr's ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church Ration account p. 293. And def against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth Separation from that Church Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joyning with the Church of England but Worshiping God in Meeting apart from it Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book to set it off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Letters of three French Divines Printed first in French and then in English ad pompam for it is little ad pugnam But he might know what ever difference we give to learned and good men their authority without Scripture proof which we yet desiderate will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice let the Dr. call it obstinacy or by what name he pleaseth The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden to the Bp. of London the authority of which Letter not of the learned Author of it we have good cause to neglect because it is apparent to any that read it that it is written by a stranger to us upon gross mis-information of our principles For he saith page 404. that he could not have perswaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England And I join with him so far that I know not nor hear of one Non-conformist of that opinion but thus it seems we are by our Brethren represented abroad and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England yea in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and that hold truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held so he page 408. he also page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher as very ridiculous and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists sheweth him to be either a very great stranger to them or somewhat that is worse Let any now judge whether such a Testimony be to be received against us Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it to be an ingenious and sober Person but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party He lamenteth our Divisions so do we he is for complyance with the Ceremonies being setled but is far enough from approving of them The former part of this I impute to his being less concern'd to consider these things than we are He stateth our Separation mainly
upon Episcopacy which we do not and he no doubt doth it upon Misinformation But it is observable that this good man whom the Dr. bringeth as a Witness on his side doth as much blame the Church as us whilst he is for their quitting of Ceremonies that occasion Separation which he insisteth much on as the way to peace A notable piece of Misinformation that this worthy Person hath met with is That at a Conference held for Union with the Dissenters a little after His Majesties Restauration nothing letted the Agreement but some of the Presbyterians the contrary of which and their great Condescendency for Peace is known to all England and a lasting Monument of it to Posterity is the Book called A Petition for Peace containing the things that the Presbyterians proposed while the Prelatical Party would not part with yea nor forbear their Brethren in the least Ceremony or mode of their Service Sect. 16. The Third Letter is from the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude who walketh by the same Spirit and in the same steps with his Reverend Colleague Monsieur de l' Angle He speaketh of Episcopacy as tollerable that one may with a good Conscience live under it This is not our Question but it seems the Question hath been so stated to him by them who had a mind to procure his Testimony to their Cause He telleth us they admit of Ministers that had been Ordained by Bishops so do we He doth highly commend Love and Concord And we think it cannot be overvalued where it can be had without Sin. He speaketh of Advantages both by Episcopacy and Parity and of disadvantages by both when managed by bad men Nothing of which do we contradict He complains of Extreams on both sides we do the same We never yet thought all of our Party so moderate as they should be After a proof of Independency he comes to speak of Presbyterians with that decent respect that becometh a man of his understanding and breeding and in a far other dialect than Dr. St. doth He wisheth them to be moderate in reference to the scandal that they think they have received from the Episcopal Order and to distinguish the persons from the Ministry this we refuse not He doth indeed condemn our holding assemblies apart but stateth it on this ground page 445. as if we did Separate because the publick assembles are held under Episcopal Government and that we think our presence there were an approving of it which is wide from our case but no doubt is according to his information for which we â—hank our Episcopal Brethren and commend their ingenuity To the same purpose is what he hath page 446. as if we thought we cannot with a good Conscience be present in the Assemblies but only when we do fully and generally approve all things in them which is far from our thoughts These Principles he doth most solidly refute He saith page 447. that he cannot believe that any of â—us Presbyterians look on their Episcopal Discipline or Ceremonies as blots and capital errours that hinder a man from Salvation And doth in this truly judge for we have always disowned such sentiments we judge them sinful evils which we dare not own but have much charity to some who own them He next adviseth the Bishops to moderation and when the dispute is about Ceremonies that are a stumbling-block and nothing in comparison of communion they would make it be seen that they love the Spouse of Christ better than themselves O that this advice were followed how soon might Peace return to our Land Now wherein hath Mr. Claude or his Colleague touched our controversy Alas good Men they are abused by mis-representations Their Letters give just ground to think that if they were made Umpires between the two parties Prelatical and Presbyterian and heard the true state of our debate and true matters of fact they would be of the same mind with us And I am sure the Church way that they practice is the same that we are for Wherefore the Dr. with no loss to his cause might have waved the producing of these Letters What acts are used by the Prelatical party to get foreign Divines to be on their side or at least to say nothing against them may be gathered from a passage in the Life of the Famous and great antiquary Monsieur l' Arrogie who having writ a Book wherein he sheweth the Conformity of the Discipline of the Protestant Church of Rome which all know to be Presbyterian with that of the Primitive Church And another in defence of Monsieur Dialle touching the Letters of Ignatius and the Apostolical Constitutions against Mr. Pearson and Beverige and having designed a reply to their answer that they had made to him at the request of some that favoured â—piscopacy he did not finish his answer These are pitiful shifts to support a tottering cause of the same kidney is their denying relief to the French Protestants Ministers and others who do not Conform to the Church of England the Ceremonies being to them of more value than the great Gosple Duty of charity At Dublin 1685. a French Minister who Preached to some of these Exiles was suppressed because he did not use the Ceremonies nor English Liturgy Since I wrote this I have met with another instance of Episcopal ingeâ—uity for exposing the Presbyterians among the foreign Churches It is in a Letter of the Famous Bochart dated Nov. 2d 1680. in answer to a Letter from Dr. Morley wherein the Dr. representeth the Presbyterian Principles in three poâ—itions whereof the third is a gross calumny and excellently disproved by Bochart and the Presbyterians fully vindicated by him the position is Reges posse vi armis a subditis cogi in ordinem si se praebeant immorigeros de soliis deturbare in carcerem câ—njici siâ—â—i in jus carnificem deniqne capite plecti and the Dr. asserts that these Principles were proved by the murder of K. C. 1st The Reader may abundantly satisfy himself of the impudence of this calumny from Mr. Bocharts Letter as it is Printed after his Phaleg and Canaan from page 66. of that Letter Ed. Francford 1681. FINIS
in both I think the Substance of our English Episcopacy is that one Man hath sole Power of Ordination and Jurisdiction over all the Church-Officers and Members in many Congregations if he will shew us that in the Primitive Times let him rejoice in his Argument from Antiquity 2. The Antiquity that the Dr. here pretendeth to is far short of that which himself and others do boast of with a great deal of Confidence some of them tell us of a clear Deduction that they can make of it down from the Apostles in all ages without Interruption some make it of more than 1500 years standing but the Dr. here is not pleased to pretend to that Cyprian lived in the Third Century Athanasius in the Fourth Augustine and Theodoret in the Fifth and it may easily be granted that there was a great degeneracy in Church-Discipline and Government by that time yet that Episcopacy was arrived at that heighth that is now in England even at that time we deny Sect. 2. To prove what he had undertaken he layeth down two Observations 1. That it was an inviolable rule among them that but one Bishop was to be in one Church I am little concerned in this though I see no rule for it except a Canon of Concil Cabilonens which was but Provincial and very late under Pope Eugenius about Ann. 654 yet I think it was generally and rationally practised for taking a Bishop for the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 among the Presbyters which I affirm to have been the Dialect of those times What needed more Bishops than one seeing all the Presbyters of one City might conveniently meet ordinarily for the Exercise of Discipline When Mr. B. proveth the contrary he taketh Bishop in the Apostles sence and then I affirm with him that there were more Bishops in one City that every Assembly for worship had one if not more The Dr's Argument that he seemeth to glory in p. 246. is of no value it is That if more Bishops than one could be in a City the Schism of the Donatists and Novatians might have been prevented this is either a great mistake or somewhat else for taking Bishops for Moderators of Presbytery the bare setting up of two Presbyteries and two Moderators could not have prevented these Schisms and if the Church had found it convenient to divide them retaining the same Principles of Faith and about Church-Order and Discipline there had been no Schism It is most false that these Schisms were meerly about the plurality of Bishops in a City The Schism of the Donatists had its rise at Carthage from the Ambition of Donatus who opposed the election of Cecilianus the pretence was that he had been ordained by a Proditor and that he had admitted another Proditor to Ecclesiastical Office Cecilianus being Tried and Acquitted both by the Emperor and the Church in several Councils Donatus and his party set up another Church an Eldership and People in opposition to Cecilianus disclaiming the discipline of Cecilianus and his Party in admiting the lapsed upon repentance and admitting the wicked as they alledged to the Sacraments So that it is plain that the Schism lay in this That they set up another Church-way and Order and consequentially to that set up another Bishop and Presbytery not beside but in opposition to that which was before and that without sufficient reason upon the very like occasion did Novatus separate from Cornelius Bishop at Rome and set up a new Church on the foresaid grounds Cyprian indeed condemneth Novatus and nullifieth his Church-Power because post primum secundus esse non potest but this is still to be understood of setting up another Bishop or meeting of Presbyters under a President without the Authority of the Church or good cause for so doing It is evident then that these Schisms were built on another Foundation than what the Dr. supposeth and that they could not have been prevented if forty Bishops had been allowed in a City as long as Donatus and Novatus retained their Principles they would have separated from all Bishops and Churches that were not of their way all that followeth in this his first Observation is easily Answered in one Word to wit that all these Citations prove no more than this that where a Church was setled and sufficiently furnished whether you take it for a single Congregation or more Congregations associate for Discipline with a President it was not fit for any to disturb that Unity by setting up another Church whether of the one or the other sort mentioned Sect. 3. His second Observation is That in Cities and Diocesses which were under the care of one Bishop there were several Congregations and Altars and distant places I contend not about the word Diocess supposing that one President of an Assembly of Presbyters with these Presbyters might have ruling power over many particular Churches call that District by what name he will the matter is not great Our question is not about the Name but the Power by which that District was ruled whether it were in one Man or in the body of Presbyters But it is well known that Diocess which now signifieth a Church Division did in those days signifie a Civil Division of the Roman Empire made by Constantine the Great who divided the hundred Provinces of the Empire into 14 Diocesses where all Africk was but one see for this Heylin Cosmogr lib. 1 p. 54. And it is as well known that Diocess did often Signifie a Parish or people of a Parish neither do I contend about the word Altar supposing the Dr. meaneth places where the Lords Supper was Celebrated Both Origen and Arnobius affirm that 200 years after Christ the Christians were blamed by the Heathens because they had no Altars the name of Altar was not used in the Church till the Third Century and not then neither but figuratively But the Dr. loveth to speak of Ancient things in his Modern Dialect borrowed from the more corrupted times of the Church Sect. 4. For his Observation it self I shall not contend about it tho' I think he will hardly answer what is said against it No Evid for Diocess p. 15. For it maketh nothing against what I hold unless he prove that the Bishop had the sole Power or had jurisdiction over the Presbyters in that District which he calleth a Diocess What he saith that seemeth to be Argumentative to this purpose I shall mind and no more The multitude and distance of places that he instanceth tho' all were true the contrary of which the forecited Author maketh appear will not prove Superiority of power in one Man neither Augustine's care for Neighbouring Places that wanted Ministers either to provide Ministers for them or to Baptize them or do other Church Acts for them in their need This proveth neither Extension nor Solitude of Power far less doth Cyprian's nameing Provincia nostra in which were many Bishops prove him to have been a Metropolitan the Empire was
divided into Provinces If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country it will not prove that they were under his Charge Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them and all their Churches or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them and so that he was more than president in their meeting when they came together about the Affairs of the Church These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira and these of Maraeotis And 1. Epiphamus saith that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches especially those of Maraeotis Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them That this was an Act of Charity not of Episcopal Authority appeareth because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches not a part of Athanasiu's Church and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis which Athanasius saith were subject to him Next Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village Ans. Maraeotis or Mâ—ria as Ptolomy calleth it is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉 I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake which it seems had then few Churches and Christians and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline with these of Alexandria being very near to it their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator Subjâ—cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself because men have set up such Bishops but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops which is not done by such an Argument as this wherefore I deny the Drs third Consequence that he draweth from this passage p. 254. to wit That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belongeth to him There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meetâ—ng in Diverse Assemblies I meddle not with it is nothing against us whether it weâ—e so or otherwise Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth is out of Theodoret which he saith is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Poweâ— he saith he had the pâ—storal charge of 800. he should have said 80 Churches and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony but without cause for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ and which had been kept more intire in former Ages 2. It is much suspected by learned Men that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name as Leontius saith which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches but that he had been Pastor in them the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth 4. But whatever be in that this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power as to place or bounds but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop Sect. 7. Before I proceed I shall return to examine the Doctor 's Allegations for Diocesan Power p. 230. which I above referred to this place He asserteth That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it to wit That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place as Bishop and dischargeth the like to be done for the future Lucian saith that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and several Passages to this purpose To all which I. A. by denying the Consequence Cyprian as I cited above did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all But it was solely in them even so that the Presbyters especially that some of them as the Dr. himself states the Case might not do it without Cyprian doth not prove that the Presbyters and whole Church were under his Government It amounteth to no more but this that in a Presbytery regularly constituted especially where they have devolved the Power of calling and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed and constant Moderator it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline without the rest and particularly without Consulting him whom they have so chosen Beside I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far as afterward many did He was a holy and meek Man but such may be a little too high To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage that the Dr. citeth sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed in that not only some Presbyters took it on them without a regular Meeting of the whole but even Deacons medled with it which was out of their way His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church is wholly out of the way for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop proveth as little as the rest for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office which was not from the beginning Cyprians appointing some to visit when he could not do it by reason of Persecution neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their