but at last the way of Separation prevailed as the more pure and perfect way But this was not thought sufficient by these busie Factors for the Church of Rome unless they could under the same pretence of purity and perfection draw off Protestants from the Communion of this Church too To this purpose Persons were imployed under the disguise of more Zealous Protestants to set up the way of more Spiritual Prayer and greater Purity of Worship than was observed in the Church of England that so the People under these Pretences might be drawn into Separate Meetings Of this we have a Considerable Evidence lately offer'd to the World in the Examination of a Priest so imploy'd at the Council-Table A. D. 1567. being the 9th of Q. Elizabeth which is published from the Lord Burleighs Papers which were in the hands of Arch-Bishop Usher and from him came to Sir James Ware whose Son brought them into England and lately caused them to be Printed Two years after one Heath a Jesuit was Summon'd before the Bishop of Rochester on a like account for disparaging the Prayers of the Church and setting up Spiritual Prayers above them and he declared to the Bishop That he had been six years in England and that he had laboured to refine the Protestants and to take off all smacks of Ceremonies and to make the Church purer When he was seized on a Letter was found about him from a Jesuit in Spain wherein he takes notice how he was admired by his Flock and tells him they looked on this way of dividing Protestants as the most effectual to bring them all back to the Church of Rome and in his Chamber they found a Bull from Pius V. to follow the Instructions of the Society for dividing the Protestants in England and the License from his Fraternity There is one thing in the Jesuits Letter deserves our farther consideration which the Publisher of it did not understand which is that Hallingham Coleman and Benson are there mentioned as Persons imploy'd to sow a Faction among the German Hereticks which he takes to be spoken of the Sects in Germany but by the German Hereticks the English Protestants are meant i.e. Lutherans and these very Men are mentioned by our Historians without knowing of this Letter as the most active and busie in the beginning of the Separation Of these saith Fuller Coleman Button Hallingham and Benson were the chief At which time saith Heylin Benson Button Hallingham and Coleman and others taking upon them to be of more ardent Zeal than others c. That time is 1568 which agrees exactly with the Date of that Letter at Madrid October 26. 1568. And both these had it from a much better Author than either of them Camden I mean who saith That while Harding Sanders and others attacked our Church on one side Coleman Button Hallingham Benson and others were as busie on the other who under pretence of a purer Reformation opposed the Discipline Liturgy and Calling of our Bishops as approaching too near to the Church of Rome And he makes these the Beginners of those Quarrels which afterwards brake out with great violence Now that there is no improbability in the thing will appear by the suitableness of these Pretences about Spiritual Prayer to the Doctrine and Practices of the Jesuits For they are professed despisers of the Cathedral Service and are excused from their attendance on it by the Constitutions of their Order and are as great admirers of Spiritual Prayer and an Enthusiastick way of Preaching as appears by the History of the first Institution of their Order by Orlandinus and Maffeius They who are acquainted with their Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer will find that which is admired and set up here as so much above Set-Forms to be one of the lowest of three sorts among them That Gift of Prayer which Men have but requires the Exercise of their own Gifts to stir it up they call Oratio acquisita acquired Prayer although they say the Principle of it is infused The Second is by a special immediate influence of the Holy Ghost upon the Mind with the concurrence of infused habits The Third is far above either of these which they call the Prayer of Contemplation and is never given by way of habit to any but lies in immediate and unexpressible unions All these I â—ould easily shew to be the Doctrine received and magnified in the Roman Church especially by those who pretend to greater Purity and Spirituality than others But this is sufficient to my purpose to prove that there is no improbability that they should be the first setters up of this way in England And it is observable that it was never known here or in any other Reformed Church before this time and therefore the beginning of it is unjustly father'd by some on T. C. But by whomsoever it was begun it met with such great success in the zeal and warmth of devotion which appeared in it that no Charm hath been more effectual to draw injudicious People into a contempt of our Liturgy and admiring the Way of Separation When by such Arts the People were possessed with an Opinion of a more pure and Spiritual Way of Worship than was used in our Church they were easily drawn into the admiration of those who found fault with the Liturgy and Ceremonies that were used among us and so the Divisions wonderfully increased in a very short time And the Papists could not but please themselves to see that other Men did their VVork so effectually for them For the Authors of the Admonition 14 Elizab. declared They would have neither Papists nor others constrained to Communicate which although as Arch-Bishop Whitgift saith they intended as a Plea for their own Separation from the Church yet saith he the Papists could not have met with better Proctors And elsewhere he tells them That they did the Pope very good service and that he would not miss them for any thing For what is his desire but to have this Church of England which he hath Accused utterly defaced and discredited to have it by any means overthrown if not by Forrein Enemies yet by Domestical Dissention And What fitter and apter Instruments could he have had for that purpose than you who under pretence of zeal overthrow that which other Men have builded under color of Purity seek to bring in Deformity and under the Cloke of Equality and Humility would usurp as great Tyranny and lofty Lordliness over your Parishes as ever the Pope did over the whole Church And in another place he saith They were made the Engines of the Roman Conclave whereby they intend to overthrow this Church by our own Folly which they cannot compass by all their Policy Arch-Bishop Grindal as I find a Letter of his expressed his great fear of two things Atheism and Popery and both arising out of our needless Divisions and Differences fomented he doubts not by
are built Sect. 19. The advantages of National Churches above Independent Congregations Sect. 20. Mr. B's Quaeries about National Churches answered The Notion of the Church of England explained Sect. 21. What necessity of one Constitutive Regent part of a National Church Sect. 22. What Consent is necessary to the Union of a National Church Sect. 23. Other Objections answered Sect. 24. Of the Peoples power of choosing their own Pastors Not founded in Scripture Sect. 25. The testimony of Antiquity concerning it fully inquired into The great disturbances of popular Elections the Ganons against them The Christian Princes interposing The ancient Rights of Nomination and Presentation The practice of foreign Protestant Churches No reason to take away the Rights of Patronage to put the choice into the peoples hands Objections answered Sect. 26. No unlawfulness in the Terms of our Communion Of substantial parts of Worship The things agreed on both sides Sect. 27. The way of finding the difference between their Ceremonies and parts of Divine Worship cleared Sect. 28. The difference of the Popish Doctrine from ours as to Ceremonies Sect. 29. The Sign of the Cross a Rule of Admission into our Church and no part of Divine Worship Sect. 30 No new Sacrament Mr. B's Objections answered Sect. 31. His great mistakes about the Papist's Doctrine concerning the Moral Casuality of Sacraments Sect. 32. Of the Customs observed in our Church though not strictly required Sect. 33. Of the Censures of the Church against Opposers of Ceremonies and the force of Excommunication ipso facto Sect. 34. Of the Plea of an erroneous Conscience in the case of Separation Sect. 35. Of scruples of Conscience still remaining Sect. 36. Of the use of Godfathers and Godmothers in Baptism Sect. 37. No ground of Separation because more Ceremonies may be introduced Sect. 38. No Parity of Reason as to the Dissenters Pleas for separating from our Church and our Separation from the Church of Rome An Appendix containing several Letters of Eminent Protestant Divines abroad shewing the unreasonableness of the present Separation from the Church of England Letter of Monsieur le Moyn p. 395 Of Monsieur le Angle p. 412 Of Monsieur Claude p. 427 Errata in the Preface Page 14. marg r. Church History l. 9 p. 81. p. 17. l. 24. after find insert in p. 34. l. 18. for S. Paul r. the Apostle p. 36. l. 5. r. follows p. 53. l. 21. for our r. one In the Book p. 59. l. 5. for 1 r. 3 p. 71. l. 27. r. secession p. 72. l 8. r. as will l. 28. r. for which l. ult r. Cameron p. 101 l 12. dele for before say they p. 102. l. 11. r. their teachers p. 378. l. 2. dele whether AN Historical Account OF THE RISE and PROGRESS OF THE CONTROVERSIE ABOUT Separation PART I. Sect. I. FOr our better understanding the State of this Controversie it will be necessary to Premise these Two Things 1. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of our Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation 2. That when Separation began it was most vehemently opposed by those Non-conformists who disliked many things in our Church and wished for a farther Reformation And from a true Account of the State of the Controversie then it will appear that the Principles owned by them do overthrow the present practise of Separation among us In the making out of these I shall give a full account of the Rise and Progress of this Controversie about Separation from the Communion of our Church I. That although the present Reasons for Separation would have held from the beginning of the Reformation yet no such thing was then practised or allowed by those who were then most zealous for Reformation By Separation we mean nothing else but Withdrawing from the constant Communion of our Church and Ioyning with Separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification By the present Reasons for Separation we understand such as are at this day insisted on by those who pretend to justifie these Practises and those are such as make the Terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful And not one of all those which my Adversaries at this time hope to Justifie the present Separation by but would have had as much force in the beginning of the Reformation For our Church stands on the same Grounds useth the same Ceremonies only fewer prescribes the same Liturgy only more corrected hath the same constitution and frame of Government the same defect of Discipline the same manner of appointing Parochial Ministers and at least as effectual means of Edification as there were when the Reformation was first established And what advantage there is in our present circumstances as to the Number Diligence and Learning of our Allowed Preachers as to the Retrenching of some Ceremonies and the Explication of the meaning of others as to the Mischiefs we have seen follow the practice of Separation do all make it much more unreasonable now than it had been then Sect. II. It cannot be denied that there were different apprehensions concerning some few things required by our Church in the beginning of the Reformation but they were such things as are the least scrupled now Rogers refused the wearing of a Square Cap and Tippet c. unless a Difference were made between the Popish Priests and ours Hooper at first scrupled the Episcopal Habits but he submitted afterwards to the use of them Bucer and some others disliked some things in the first Common-Prayer-Book of Edward the Sixth which were Corrected in the Second So that upon the Review of the Liturgy there seemed to be little or no dissatisfaction left in the Members of our Church at least as to those things which are now made the grounds of Separation For we read of none who refused the constant use of the Liturgy or to comply with those very few Ceremonies which were retained as the Cross in Baptism and Kneeling at the Communion which are now thought such Bugbears to scare People from our Communion and make them cry out in such a dreadful manner of the Mischief of Impositions as though the Church must unavoidably be broken in pieces by the weight and burden of two or three such insupportable Ceremonies Now we are told That it is unreasonable that any should create a necessity of Separation and then complain of an Impossibility of Vnion By Whom At what Time In what Manner was this necessity of Separation created Hath our Church made any New Terms of Communion or alter'd the Old Ones No the same Author saith It is perpetuating the old Conditions and venturing our Peace in an old Worm-eaten Bottom wherein it must certainly miscâ—rry Not to insist on his way of Expression in calling the Reformation An Old Worm-eaten Bottom which ill beâ—omes them that would now be held the most
Evidence of Truth and without forsaking his Old Principles to justifie the Church of England from all imputation of Heresie or Schism and the Religion thereof as it stood by Law established from the like imputation of Novelty Wherein he professes to lay open the inmost thoughts of his heart in this sad business before God and the World I might shew by particular Instances from my present Adversaries that to defend their own practices they are driven to maintain such Principles as by evident consequences from them do overthrow the Justice and Equity of the Reformation but I leave those things to be observed in their proper places Yet I do not question the Sincerity of many Mens Zeal against Popery who out of too eager a desire of upholding some particular Fancies of their own may give too great advantage to our Common Enemies Three ways Bishop Sanderson observes our Dissenting Brethren though not intentionally and purposely yet really and eventually have been the great Promoters of the Roman Interest among us 1. By putting to their helping hand to the pulling down of Episcopacy And saith he it is very well known to many what rejoycing that Vote brought to the Romish Party How even in Rome it self they Sung their Jo-â—aeans upon the Tidings thereof and said Triumphantly Now the day is ours Now is the Fatal-Blow given to the Protestant Religion in England 2 By opposing the Interest of Rome with more Violence than Reason 3 By frequent mistaking the Question but especially through the necessity of some false Principle or other which having once imbibed they think themselves bound to maintain whatever becomes of the Common Cause of our Reformation Which may at last suffer as much through some Mens folly and indiscretion who pretend to be the most Zealous Protestants as by all the Arts and Designs of our open Enemies For as the same Learned and Iudicious Bishop hath said in this case Many a Man when he thought most to make it sure hath quite marred a good business by over-doing it Thus when the Papists of late years have not been able to hinder the taking many things into consideration against their interest it hath been observed that their Instruments have been for the most violent Counsels knowing that either they would be wholly ineffectual or if they were pursued they might in the end bring more advantage than prejudice to their Cause And it is to be feared they may still hope to do their business as Divines observe the Devil doth who when he finds one extreme will not do he tries whether he can compass his end by the other And no doubt they will extremely rejoyce if they can make some Mens Fears of Popery prove at last an effectual means to bring it about As some of the Jews of old out of a rash and violent zeal for the preservation of the purity of their Religion as they pretended by opposing the Sacrifices offer'd by Strangers and denying the use of the lawful Customs of their Country brought the Roman Power upon them and so hasten'd the destruction both of their Religion and Countrey too I do not mention this as though we could take too great care by good and wholsom Laws to strengthen the Protestant Interest and by that means to keep out Popery but only to shew what mighty prejudice an indiscreet Zeal at this time may bring upon us if Men suffer themselves to be transported so far as to think that overthrowing the Constitution of this Church will be any means to secure the Protestant Religion among us For What is it which the Papists have more envied and maligned than the Church of England What is it they have more wished to see broken in pieces As the late Cardinal Barberini said in the hearing of a Gentleman who told it me He could be contented there were no Priests in England so there were no Bishops for then he supposed their Work would do it self What is it they have used more Arts and Instruments to destroy than the Constitution and Government of this Church Did not Cranmer and Ridley and Hooper and Farrar and Latimer all Bishops of this Church suffer Martyrdom by their Means Had not they the same kind of Episcopacy which is now among us and which some now are so busie in seeking to destroy by publishing one Book after another on purpose to represent it as unlawful and inconsistent with the Primitive Institution Is all this done for the honor of our Reformation Is this the way to preserve the Protestant Religion among us to fill Mens Minds with such Prejudices against the first settlement of it as to go about 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 Whither will not Mens Indiscreet Zeal and love of their own Fancies carry them especially after 40 years prescription I do not say such Men are set on by the Jesuits but I say they do their Work as effectually in blasting the credit of the Reformation as if they were And yet after all these pains and Forty years Meditations I do not question but I shall make it appear that our present Episcopacy is agreeable to the Institution of Christ and the best and most flourishing Churches And Wherein doth our Church differ from its first Establishment Were not the same Ceremonies then appointed the same Liturgy in Substance then used concerning which Dr. Taylor who then suffered Martyrdom publickly declared That the whole Church-Service was set forth in King Edward ' s days with great deliberation by the Advice of the best Learned Men in the Realm and Authorised by the whole Parliament and Received and Published gladly through the whole Realm which Book was never Reformed but once and yet by that one Reformation it was so fully perfected according to the Rules of our Christian Religion in every behalf that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained I mean saith he of that Book Reformed Yet this is that Book whose constant use is now pleaded by some together with our Ceremonies as a ground for the necessity of Separation from our Churches Communion But if we trace the Footsteps of this Separation as far as we can we may find strong probabilities that the Jesuitical Party had a great influence on the very first beginnings of it For which we must consider that when the Church of England was restored in Queen Elizabeth's Reign there was no open Separation from the Communion of it for several years neither by Papists nor Non-conformists At last the more Zealous Party of the Foreign Priests and Jesuits finding this Compliance would in the end utterly destroy the Popish Interest in England they began to draw off the secret Papists from all Conformity with our Church which the old Queen Mary's Priests allowed them in this raised some heat among themselves
came into their City And What could this be for but to draw People from their Churches to make up Separate Congregations And ever since that time they have been hammering out Principles such as they are to justifie their own practices But the Presbyterians did not joyn with the Papists for a General Toleration I grant some of them did not although very powerful Charm's were at that time used to draw them in and not a few swallowed the Specious Bait although some had the Skill to disentangle themselves from the Hook which went along with it But that this honor doth not belong Vniversally to them I shall thus evidently prove In A. D. 1675 there was a Book Printed Entituled The Peaceable Design or an Account of the Non-conformists Meetings by some Ministers of London In it an Objection is thus put But What shall we say then to the Pâ—pists The Answer is The Papist in our Account is but one sort of Recusants and the Conscientious and Peaceable among them must be held in the same Predicament with those among our selves that likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer What is this but joyning for a Toleration of Popery If this be not plain enough these words follow But as for the Common Papist who lives innocently in his way he is to us as other Separatists and so comes under like Toleration This notable Book with some few Additions and Alterations hath been since Printed and with great sincerity called An Answer to my Sermon And the Times being changed since the former Passage is thus alter'd The Papist is one whose Worship to us is Idolatry and we cannot therefore allow them the liberty of Publick Assembling themselves as others of the Separation Is it Idolatry and not to be tolerated in 1680 And was it Idolatry and to be tolerated in 1675 Or was it no Idolatry then but is become so now and intolerable Idolatry too The latter passage hath these Alterations in stead of He is to us as other Separatists and so comes under the like Toleration these are put in He is to us in regard of what he doth in private in the matter of his God as others who likewise refuse to come to Common Prayer Now we see Toleration struck out for the Papists but it was not only visible enough before but that very Book was Printed with a Design to present it to the Parliament which was the highest way of owning their Concurrence with the Papists for a general Toleration And the true reason of this alteration is that then was then and now is now And to shew yet farther what influence the Jesuitical Counsels have had upon their People as to the Course of Separation I shall produce the Testimony of a very considerable Person among them who understood those affairs as well as any Man viz Mr. Ph. Nye VVho not long before his Death foreseeing the Mischievous Consequence of those Extravagant Heats the People were running into VVrote a Discourse on purpose to prove it lawful to hear the Conforming Ministers and Answers all the Common Objections against it towards the Câ—nclusion he wonders how the differing Parties came to be so agreed in thinking it unlawful to hear us Preach but he saith He is perswaded it is one constant design of Satan in the variety of ways of Religion he hath set on foot by Jesuits among us Let us therefore be more aware of whatsoever tends that way Here we have a plain Confession of a Leading Man among the Dissenters That the Jesuits were very busie among them and that they and the Devil joyned together in setting them at the greatest distance possible from the Church of England and that those who would countermine the Devil and the Jesuits must avoid whatever tends to that height of Separation the People were run into And Mr. Baxter in those days viz. but a little before the Indulgence came out was so sensible of the Mischief of Separation that he saith Our Division gratifieth the Papists and greatly hazardeth the Protestant Religion and that more than most of your seem to believe or to regard VVhere he speaks to the Separating People And among other great inconveniencies of Separation which he mentions this is one That Popery will get by it so great advantage as may hazard us all and we may lose that which the several Parties do contend about Two ways especially Popery will grow out of our Divisions 1. By the odium and scorn of our disagreements inconsistency and multiplied Sects they will perswade People that we must come for Unity to them or else run Mad and crumble into dust and individuaals Thousands have been drawn to Popery or confirmed in it by this Argument already and I am perswaded that all the Arguments else in Bellarmin and all other Books that ever were Written have not done so much to make Papists in England as the Multitude of Sects among our selves Yea some Professors of Religious strictness of great esteem for Godliness have turned Papists themselves when they were giddy and wearied with turnings and when they had run from Sect to Sect and found no consistency in any 2. Either the Papists by increasing the Divisions would make them be accounted Seditious Rebellious dangerous to the Publick Peace or else when so many Parties are constrained to beg and wait for liberty the Papists may not be shut out alone but have Toleration with the rest And saith he Shall they use our hands to do their Works and pull their Freedom out of the Fire We have already unspeakably served them both in this and in abating the Odium of the Gunpowder Plot and their other Treasons Insurrections and Spanish Invasion Thus freely did Mr. Baxter VVrite at that time and even after the Indulgence he hath these passages concerning the Separating and Dividing Humor of their People It shameth it grieveth us to see and hear from England and from New England this common cry We are endanger'd by Divisions principally because the Self-conceited part of the Religious People will not be ruled by their Pastors but must have their way and will needs be Rulers of the Church and them And soon after he saith to them You have made more Papists than ever you or we are like to recover Nothing is any whit considerable that a Papist hath to say till he cometh to your case and saith Doth not experience tell you that without Papal Unity and Force these People will never be ruled or united It is you that tempt them to use Fire and Faggot that will not be ruled nor kept in concord by the Wisest and holyest and most Self-denying Ministers upon Earth Are not these kind words for themselves considering what he gives to others And must you even you that should be our comfort become our shame and break our hearts and make Men Papists by your Temptation Wo to the World because of offences and wo to some by
whom they come Let now any impartial Reader Iudge who did most effectually serve the Papists Designs those who kept to the Communion of the Church of England or those who fell into the Course of Separation I will allow what Mr. Baxter saith That they might use their endeavors to exasperate the several Parties against each other and might sometimes press the more rigorous execution of Laws against them but then it was to set them at the greater distance from us and to make them more pliable to a General Toleration And they sometimes complained that those who were most adverse to this found themselves under the severity of the Law when more tractable Men escaped which they have weakly imputed to the implacable temper of the Bishops when they might easily understand the true Cause of such a discrimination But from the whole it appears that the grand Design of the Papists for many years was to break in pieces the Constitution of the Church of England which being done they flatter'd themselves with the hopes of great Accessions to their strength and Party and in order to this they inflamed the differences among us to the utmost height on purpose to make all the Dissenting Parties to joyn with them for a General Toleration which they did not question would destroy this Church and advance their Interest Whether they did judge truly in this I am not to determine it is sufficient that they went upon the greatest Probabilities But Is it possible to imagine such skilful Engineers should use so much Art and Industry to undermine and blow up a Bulwark unless they hoped to gain the place or at lest some very considerable advantage to themselves by it And it is a most unfortunate condition our Church is in if those who design to bring in Popery and those who design to keep it out should both conspire towards its destruction This which I have represented was the posture of our Church-Affairs when the late horrible Plot of the Papists for Destruction of the Kings Person and Subversion of our Religion came to be discover'd It seems they found the other methods tedious and uncertain and they met with many cross accidents many rubs and disappointments in their way and therefore they resolved upon a Summary way of Proceeding and to do their business by one blow VVhich in regard of the circumstances of our Affairs is so far from being incredible that if they had no such design it is rather a VVonder they had not especially considering the allowed Principles and Practices in the Church of Rome Upon the discovery of the Plot and the Means of Papists used confirm the Truth of it knowing our great proneness to Infidelity by the Murder of a worthy Gentleman who received the Depositions the Nation was extremely Alarm'd with the apprehensions of Popery and provoked to the utmost detestation of it Those who had been long apprehensive of their restless designs were glad to see others awaken'd but they seemed like Men roused out of a deep sleep being amazed and confounded fearful of every thing and apt to mistrust all persons who were not in such a Consternation as themselves During this heat some of us both in Private and Publick endeavor'd to bring the Dissenters to the sense of the necessity of Union among Protestants hoping the apprehension of present danger common to us all would have disposed them to a better inclination to the things which belong to our Peace But finding the Nation thus vehemently bent against Popery those who had formerly carried it so smoothly and fairly towards the common and innocent Papists as they then stiled them and thought them equally capable of Toleration with themselves now they fly out into the utmost rage against them and others were apt by sly insinuations to represent those of the Church of England some of whom had appeared with vigor and resolution against Popery when they were trucking underhand for Toleration with them as Papists in Masquerade But now they tack about and strike in with the violent Rage of the People and none so fierce against Popery as they VVhat influence it hath had upon others I know not but I confess it did not lessen my esteem of the Integrity of those of the Church of England that they were not so much transported by sudden heats beyond the just bounds of Prudence and Decency and Humanity towards their greatest Enemies having learnt from St. Paul That the wrath of Man worketh not the righteousness of God They expected as little favor from them as any if they had prevailed and I doubt not but some of them had been made the first Examples of their Cruelty However this was interpreted to be want of Zeal by those who think there is no Fire in the House unless it flame out at the VVindows and this advantage was taken by the inveterate Enemies of our Church to represent us all as secret friends to the Papists so improbable a Lie that the Devil himself would Blush at the Telling of it not for the Malice but the Folly and Ill Contrivance of it and those who were more moderate were content to allow 3 or 4 among the Bishops to be Protestants and about 4 or 5 among the Clergy of London To feed this humor which wonderfully spread among more of the People than we could have believed to have been so weak most of the Malicious Libels against the Church of England were Reprinted and dispersed and new ones added to them Among the rest one Translated out of French to prove the Advances of the Church of England towards Popery but so unhappily managed that those Persons are Chiefly Mention'd who had appeared with most zeal against Popery Yet so much had the Arts of some Men prevailed over the Iudgments of others that even this Discourse was greedily swallowed by them But I must do the Author of it that Right to declare that before his Death he was very sensible of the Injury he had done to some Worthy Divines of our Church therein and begged God and them Pardon for it Wherein as he followed the Example of some others who were great Enemies to our Church while they lived but repented of it when they came to die so I hope others upon better consideration will see reason to follow his But this was but an inconsiderable trifle in comparison of what follow We were still in hopes that Men so Wise so Self-denying as the Non-conformist Ministers represent themselves to the World would in so Critical a time have made some steps or advances towards an Union with us at lest to have let us known their Sense of the Present State of things and their Readiness to joyn with us as far as they could against the Assaults of a Common Enemy In stead of this those we Discoursed with seemed farther off than before and when we lest expected such a Blow under the Name of a Plea for Peace out comes a
Harrison His example was soon followed by others of his Brethren who Wrote the Admonition to the Followers of Brown and the Defence of that Admonition When Barrow and Greenwood published their Four Reasons for Separation Three of which they took out of the Admonition to the Parliament viz. Vnlawful Ministry Antichristian Government and False Worship Gifford a Non-conformist at Maldon in Essex undertook to Answer them in several Treatises And it is observable that these Non-conformists Charge the Brownists with making a Vile Notorious and Damnable Schism because they withdrew from the Communion of our Churches and set up New Ones of their own Gifford not only calls them Schismaticks but saith They make a Vile Schism Rending themselves from the Church of England and condemning by their Assertions the Whole Visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time and he adds That the end of Brownism as it was then called is Infinite Schismes Heresies Atheism and Barbarism And the same Author in his Second Book reckoning up the ill effects of this Separation among the People hath these remarkable words Now look also on the People where we may see very many who not regarding the chief Christian Vertues and Godly Duties as namely to be Meek to be Patient to be Lowlie to be full of Love and Mercy to deal Vprightly and Iustly to Guide their Families in the Fear of God with Wholsome Instructions and to stand fast in the Calling in which God hath set them give themselves wholly to this even as if it were the Sum and Pith of Religion namely to Argue and Talk continually against Matters in the Church against Bishops and Ministers and one against another on both sides Some are proceeded to this that they will come to the Assemblies to hear the Sermons and Prayers of the Preacher but not to the Prayers of the Book which I take to be a more grievous sin than many do suppose But yet this is not the worst for sundry are gone further and fallen into a Damnable Schism and the same so much the more fearful and dangerous in that many do not see the foulness of it but rather hold them as Godly Christians and but a little over-shot in these matters But that this Man went upon the Principles of the Non-conformists appears by his Stating the Question in the same Preface For I shewed saith he in express words that I do not meddle at all in these Questions whether there be corruptions and faults in our Church condemned by Gods Word whether they be many or few whether they be small or great but only thus far whether they be such or so great as make our Churches Antichristian Barrow saith That this Gifford was one that Ioyned with the rest of the Faction in the Petition to the Parliament against the English Hierarchy and it appears by several passages of his Books that he was a Non-conformist and he is joyned with Cartwright Hildersham Brightman and other Non-conformists by the Prefacer to the Desence of Bradshaw against Iohnson and I find his Name in one of the Classes in Essex at that time The Author of the Second Answer for Communicating who defends T. Cs. Letter to Harrison Browns Colleague against Separation proves Ioyning with the Church a Duty necessarily enjoyned him of God by his Providence through his being and placing in a particular Church and justly required of him by the Church or Spiritual Body through that same inforcing Law of the coherence and being together of the parts and members which is the express Ordinance of God So that saith he unless I hold the Congregation whereof I am now disanulled and become no Church of Christ for the not separating an unworthy Member I cannot voluntarily either absent my self from their Assemblies to Holy Exercises or yet depart away being come together without Breach of the Bond of Peace Sundring the Cement of Love empairing the growth of the Body of Christ and incurring the guilt of Schism and Division To the same purpose he speaks elsewhere Richard Bernard calls it An Vncharitable and Lewd Schism which they were guilty of But I need not mention more particular Aâ—thors since in the Grave Confutation of the Errors of the Separatists in the Name of the Non-conformists it is said That because we have a True Church conâ—â—ting of a Lawful Ministery and a Faithful People therefore they cannot separate themselves from us but they must needs incur the most shameful and odious Reproach of Manifest Schism And concerning the State of the Persons who lived in Separation they say We hold them all to be in a Dangerous Estate we are loth to say in a Damnable Estate as long as they continue in this Schism Sect. 9. But for our farther understanding the full State of this Controversie we must consider What things were agreed on both sides and where the Main Points of Difference lay 1. The Separatists did yield the Doctrine or Faith of the Church of England True and Sound and a Possibility of Salvation in the Communion of it In their Apology presented to King Iames thus they speak We testifie by these presents unto all Men and desire them to take knowledge hereof that we have not forsaken any one Point of the True Ancient Catholick and Apostolick Faith professed in our Land but hold the same Grounds of Christian Religion with them still And the Publisher of the Dispute about Separation between Iohnson and Iacob saith That the first Separatists never denied that the Doctrine and Profession of the Churches of England was sufficient to make those that believed and obeyed them to be true Christians and in the state of Salvation but always held professed and acknowledged the contrary Barrow saith That they commended the Faith of the English Martyrs and deemed them saved notwithstanding the false Offices and great corruptions in the Worship exercised And in the Letter to a Lady a little before his Death he saith He had Reverend estimation of sundry and good hope of many hundred thousands in England though he utterly disliked the present Constitution of this Church in the present Communion Ministry Worship Government and Ordinances Ecclesiastical of these Cathedral and Parishional Assemblies 2. The Separatists granted That Separation was not Justifiable from a Church for all Blemishes and Corruptions in it Thus they express themselves in their Apology Neither count we it lawful for any Member to forsake the Fellowship of the Church for blemishes and imperfections which every one according to his Calling should studiously seek to cure and to expect and further it until either there follow redress or the Disease be grown incurable And in the 36 Article of the Confession of their Faith written by Iohnson and Ainsworth they have these words None is to separate from a Church rightly gathered and established for faults and Corruptions which may and so
between what falls out through the passions of Men and what follows from the nature of the thing But one of their own Party at Amsterdam takes notice of a Third Cause of these Dissentions viz. The Iudgment of God upon them I do see saith he the hand of God is heavy upon them blinding their Minds and hardening their Hearts that they do not see his Truth so that they are at Wars among themselves and they are far from that true Peace of God which followeth Holiness There were two great Signs of this hand of God upon them First Their Invincible Obstinacy Secondly The Scandalous Breaches which followed still one upon the other as long as the course of Separation continued and were only sometimes hindred from shewing themselves by their not being let loose upon each other For then the Firebrands soon appear which at other times they endeavour to cover Their great Obstinacy appears by the Execution of Barrow and Greenwood who being Condemned for Seditious Books could no ways be reclaimed rather choosing to Dye than to Renounce the Principles of Separation But Penry who suffered on the same account about that time had more Relenting in him as to the business of Separation For Mr. I. Cotton of new-New-England relates this Story of him from the Mouth of Mr. Hildersham an eminent Non-conformist That he confessed He deserved Death at the Queens hand for that he had Seduced many of Her Loyal Subjects to a Separation from Hearing the Word of Life in the Parish Churches Which though himself had learned to discover the Evil of yet he could never prevail to recover divers of Her Subjects whom he had Seduced and therefore the Blood of their Souls was now justly required at his hands These are Mr. Cotton's own words Concerning Barrow he reports from Mr. Dod's Mouth that when he stood under the Gibbet he lift up his eyes and said Lord if I be deceived thou hast deceived me And so being stopt by the hand of God he was not able to proceed to speak any thing to purpose more either to the Glory of God or Edification of the People These Executions extremely startled the Party and away goes Francis Iohnson with his Company to Amsterdam Iohnson chargeth Ainsworth and his Party with Anabaptism and want of Humility and due Obedience to Government In short they fell to pieces separating from each others Communion some say They formally Excommunicated each other but Mr. Cotton will not allow that but he saith They only withdrew yet those who were Members of the Church do say That Mr. Johnson and his Company were Accursed and Avoided by Mr. Ainsworth and his Company and Mr. A. and his Company were rejected and avoided by Mr. Johnson and his And one Church received the Persons Excommunicated by the other and so became ridiculous to Spectators as some of themselves confessed Iohnson and his Party charged the other with Schism in Separating from them But as others said who returned to our Church Is it a greater Sin in them to leave the Communion of Mr. Johnson than for him to refuse and avoid the Communion of all True Churches beside But the Difference went so high that Iohnson would admit none of Ainsworth's Company without Re-baptizing them Ainsworth on the other side charged them with woful Apostasy And one of his own Company said That he lived and died in Contentions When Robinson went from Leyden on purpose to end these Differences he complained very much of the disorderly and tumultuous carriage of the People Which with Mr. Ainsworths Maintenance was an early discovery of the Great Excellency of Popular Church-Governmâ—nt Smith who set up another Separate congregation was Iohnson's Pupil and went over In hopes saith Mr. Cotton to have gained his Tutor from the Errors of his Rigid Separation but he was so far from that that he soon outwent him and he charges the other Separate Congregations with some of the very same Faults which they had found in the Church of England viz. 1. Idolatrous Worship for if they charged the Church of England with Idolatry in Reading of Prayers he thought them equâ—lly guilty in looking on their Bibles in Preaching and Singing 2. Antichristian Government in adding the Human Inventions of Doctors and Ruling Elders which was pulling down one Antichrist to set up another and if one was the Beast the other was the Image of the Beast Being therefore unsatisfied with all Churches he began one wholly new and therefore Baptized himself For he declared There was no one True Ordinance with the other Separatists But this New Church was of short continuance for upon his Death it dwindled away or was swallowed up in the Common Gulf of Anabaptism And now one would have thought here had been an end of Separation and so in all probability there had had not Mr. Robinson of Leyden abated much of the Rigor of it for he asserted The Lawfulness of Communicating with the Church of England in the Word and Prayer but not in Sacraments and Discipline The former he defended in a Discourse between Ainsworth and him So that the present Separatists who deny that are gone beyond him and are fallen back to the Principles of the Rigid Separation Robinson succeeded though not immediately Iacob in his Congregation at Leyden whom some make the Father of Independency But from part of Mr. Robinson's Church it spread into New England for Mr. Cotton saith They went over thither in their Church-State to Plymouth and that Model was followed by other Churches there at Salem Boston Watertown c. Yet Mr. Cotton professeth That Robinson 's Denyal of the Parishional Churches in England to be true Churches either by reason of their mixt corrupt matter or for defect in their Covenant or for excess in their Episcopal Government was never received into any heart from thence to infer a nullity of their Church State And in his Answer to Mr. Roger Williams he hath these words That upon due consideration he cannot find That the Principles and Grounds of Reformâ—tion do necessarily conclude a Separation from the English Churches as false Churches from their Ministery as a false Ministry from their Worship as a false Worship from all their Professors as no visible Saints Nor can I find that they do either necessarily or probably conclude a Separation from Hearing the Word Preached by godly Ministers in the Parish Churches in England Mr. R. Williams urged Mr. Cotton with an apparent inconsistency between these Principles and his own Practice for although he pretended to own the Parish Churches as true Churches yet by his Actual Separation from them he shewed that really he did not and he adds that Separation did naturally follow from the old Puritan Principles saying That Mr. Can hath unanswerably proved That the Grounds and Principles of the Puritans against Bishops and Ceremonies and profaneness of People professing Christ
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
us From whence there are these things to be considered by us which may be of some use in our following Discourse 1. That all the old Non-conformists did think themselves bound in Conscience to Communicate with the Church of England and did look upon Separation from it to be Sin notwithstanding the Corruptions they supposed to be in it This I have proved with so great evidence in the forgoing Discourse that those who deny it may with the help of the same Metaphysicks deny That the Sun shines 2. That all Men were bound in Conscience towards preserving the Vnion of the Church to go as far as they were able This was not only Asserted by the Non-formists but by the most rigid Separatists of former times and by the Dissenting Brethren themselves So that the lawfulness of Separation where Communion is lawful and thought so to be by the persons who Separate is one of the Newest Inventions of this Age but what new Reasons they have for it besides Noise and Clamour I am yet to seek 3. That bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation although it may excuse Non-communion in the particulars which are scrupled provided that they have used the best means for a right information 4. That where occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty Which follows from the Divines of the Assembly blaming the Dissenting Brethren for allowing the lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches and yet forbearing ordinary Communion with them For say they to separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn seemeth to be a most unjust Separation 5. That withdrawing from the Communion of a True Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and downright Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Divines of the Assembly to the Dissenting Brethren Sect. 16. From all this it appears that the present practice of Separation can never be justified by the old Non-conformists Principles nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former is clear from undeniable Evidence and the latter is in effect confessed by all my Adversaries For although they endeavour all they can to blind the Readers Judgment with finding out the disparity of some circumstances which was never denied yet not one of them can deny that it was their Judgment That the holding of Separate Congregations for Worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was Vnlawful and Schismatical And this was the point for which I produced their Testimony in my Sermon and it still stands good against them For their resolution of the case doth not depend upon the particular circumstances of that time but upon General Reasons drawn from the Obligations to preserve Vnity in Churches which must have equal force at all times although there happen a great variety as to some circumstances For whether the greater purity of Worship be pleaded as to one circumstance or another the general case as to Separation is the same whether the Scruples do relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a necessity of Separation on their Account it comes at last to the same point Was it unlawful to desire a Liberty of Separate Congregations as the Dissenting Brethren did because of some Scruples of Conscience in them and is it not equally unlawful in others who have no more but Scruples of Conscience to plead although they relate to different things I will put this case as plain as possible to prevent all subterfuges and slight evasions Suppose five Dissenting Brethren now should plead the necessity of having Separate Congregations on the account of very different Scruples of Conscience one of them pleads that his Company scruple the use of an imposed Liturgy another saith His People do not scruple that but they cannot bear the Sign of the Cross or Kneeling at the Communion a third saith If all these were away yet if their Church be not rightly gather'd and constituted as to matter and form they must have a Congregation of their own a fourth goes yet farther and saith Let their Congregation be constituted how it will if they allow Infant-Baptism they can never joyn with them nor saith a fifth can we as long as you allow Preaching by set forms and your Ministers stint themselves by Hour-glasses and such like Human Inventions Here are now very different scruples of Conscience but Doth the nature of the case vary according to the bare difference of the Scruples One Congregation scruples any kind of Order as an unreasonable Imposition and restraint of the Spirit is Separation on that account lawful No say all other Parties against the Quakers because their scruples are unreasonable But is it lawful for a Congregation to separate on the account of Infant-Baptism No say the Presbyterians and Independents that is an unreasonable Scruple Is it lawful for Men to Separate to have greater purity in the frame and order of Churches although they may occasionally joyn in the duties of Worship No saith the Presbyterians this makes way for all manner of Schism's and Divisions if meer scruple of Conscience be a sufficient ground for Separation and if they can joyn occasionally with us they are bound to do it constantly or else the obligation to Peace and Unity in the Church signifies little No Man's Erroneous Conscience can excuse him from Schism If they alledge grounds to justifie themselves they must be such as can do it ex naturâ rei and not from the meer error or mistake of Conscience But at last the Presbyterians themselves come to be required to joyn with their Companies in Communion with the Church of England and if they do not either they must desire a separate Congregation on the account of their Scruples as to the Ceremonies and then the former Arguments unavoidably return upon them For the Church of England hath as much occasion to account those Scruples Vnreasonable as they do those of the Independents Anabaptists and Quakers Or else they declare They can joyn occasionally in Communion with our Church but yet hold it lawful to have separate Congregations for greater Purity of Worship and then the obligation to Peace and Vnity ought to have as much force on them with respect to our Church as ever they thought it ought to have on the dissenting Brethren with respect to themselves For no disparity as to other Circumstances can alter the nature of this Case viz. That as far as Men judge Communion lawfull it becomes a Duty and Separation a Sin under what denomination soever the persons pass For the fault doth not lie in the Circumstances but in the nature of the Act because then Separation appears most unreasonable when occasional Communion is confessed to be lawful As will fully appear by the following Discourse Those Men therefore speak most
Churches Or as Mr. B. expresses it The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental Reasons sway the other way From whence we may take notice 1. That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer to them than the others are and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ierusalem where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him What Church he is Member of If he should Answer He could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none Would they take such a Man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church That they would all agree was no part of Catholick Christianity And I much doubt whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion that could not tell what Church he was Member of For as to the Church of England he declares That he holds only occasional Communion with that as he would do with any other tolerable Churches But Were they not Baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it if so then if they Communicate no otherwise with it than as a tolerable defective Church they must renounce their former Membership for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it And if they do renounce their Membership in this Church their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation We thank them that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable but we cannot see how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church so that this great favor of occasional Communion which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons and some very good occasions is not worth the speaking of among Friends and so far from looking like Communion that it hath hardly the face of a Civility 2. That if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen as they say then this occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life For that is sufficient to shew their true Catholick Principles and Mr. B. faith When no such accidental Reasons do sway they are to choose the least defective way of Worship or as Mr. A. speaks To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations If then a Man be bound out of love to his Soul to prefer the best way of Worship and he judges the way of the Separate Congregations to be such there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion For the same Reasons which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one and to forsake the other And why should a Man that is acquainted with purer Administrations give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disorderly and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel and not reprove her rather by a total forbearance of her Communion And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent and holding fast that which is good and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together perswade such a Man that it is not lawful to leave the best Communion meerly to shew what defective and tolerable Church he can communicate with Which is as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow or to leave wholsom Diet to feed on Mushroms and Trash 3. That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations and less defective wayes of Worship So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way Suppose some think our Churches tolerable and Mr. B's or Mr. A's Meetings were eligible but after a while when the first rellish 〈◊〉 they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉 or Quakers and then think their way more 〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable Are not these Men bound to forsake them for the same Reasons by which they were first moved to leave our Communion and joyn with them unless they be secure that the absolute perfection of their way of Worship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fancy any defect in it Mr. Baxter once very well said Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last it will admit of no consistency Parties will arise in the Separated Churches and Separate again from them till they are dissolved Why might not R. Williams of new-New-England mention'd by Mr. B. proceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence Why might he not go on still refining of Churches till at last he dissolved his Society and declared That every one should have liberty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience By which remarkable Instance we see that this Principle when pursued will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers To which Mr. B. Answers What harm will it do me or them if any hearers go from me as you say to Dr. O. None that I know For as Dr. O. saith Since your Practice is one and the same your Principles must be so also although you choose several wayes of expressing them But Did the whole force of my Argument lie there Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers upon the very same ground And Is this a good way of Answering to dissemble the main force of an Argument that something may seem to be said to it I suppose Mr. B's great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a
and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities and to some purposes than judicious and well studied Sermons This Argument must therefore be quitted and they who will defend the present Separation must return to the old Principles of the Separatists if they will justifie their own practices And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do for discerning that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self he adds more weight to it and that comes home to the business viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for Separation and the very same which Barrow and Greenwood and Iohnson and Smith and Can used Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry but we are mistaken if we think they now manage it after the same manner We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation but less fit to justifie it the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Principles of our new Separatists as to the Ministry of our Church and to discover how little they differ from the old Separatists when this matter is throughly enquired into as to the Argument for Separation I. In General they declare That they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve How oft have I told you saith Mr. B. that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor And one or other of these he thinks most if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under You will say then Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist and thinks it not lawful to joyn with any of our Parochial Congregations but this is contradicted by his own Practice There lies therefore a farther subtilty in this matter for he declares in the same place he can joyn with them notwithstanding But how as true Churches though he saith they are not No but as Chappels and Oratories although they be not Churches as wanting an essential part This will bring the matter to a very good pass the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chappels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists This I confess is a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists and Non-conformists for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation if our Churches were not true Churches and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry Now saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches because they want an essential part viz. a true Ministry yet he can joyn with them occasionally as Chappels or Oratories From whence it appears that he accounts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such but only looks on them as Publick places of Prayer to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister or looking on the Congregation as a Church For where he speaks more fully he declares That he looks on none as true Churches but such as have the Power of the Keys within themselves and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power and any Parochial Church that hath such a one and ownes it self to be independent he allows to be a true Church and none else So that unless our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power in opposition to the present Constitution of our Church as he apprehends he at once discards them all from being true Churches but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches that which I only insist on now is That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches or as he calls it of the Political Organized Form as wanting an essential part viz. a true Pastor From hence it necessarily follows either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all or it must be a Separate Church or if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did by setting up new Churches in opposition to ours It is no sufficient Answer in this case to say That Mr. B. doth it not for we are only to shew what he is obliged to do by vertue of his own Principles which tend to as much Separation as was practised in former times and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B. Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Parochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many that they scarce allow any from whom they may not lawfully Separate 1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy or incompetent they allow them liberty to withdraw and to Separate from them This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others First They 〈◊〉 it in the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legaâ—â—stablishments to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and â—etronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People as the old Separatists did God saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scripture hath given the People that consenting Power antecedent to the Princes determination which none can take from them Mr. A. saith Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places yet if the People have not owned them they are at liberty to choose whom they please How many hundred Congregations saith Mr. B. have Incumbents whom the People never consented to but take them for their hinderers and burden So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation Secondly The People are made Iudges of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers This follows from the former In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom or only the tenth part it is no Schism saith he but a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent and it is no Schism but a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiors to perform their Office to such people that desire it This is plain dealing But suppose the Magistrate should cast out
downright with Lying and by consequence with Perjury and tells me of 30 tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity among which are Lying and Perjury and not only that but drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries by declaring That the Covenant doth not oblige But I do not question if Mr. B. pleased he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggravations of the Sin of Separation For never did any Man lay more load than he upon whatever he opposes without considering how it may fall upon himself at last and How easie it is to return such heaps of Aggravations And it was well said by one of Mr. B's Adversaries concerning him That be the Controversie what it will he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ a Heaven and Hell Which I have found too true by my experience in this case for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of but only by declaring against Separation he tells me That he is so far past doubt on the other side as that he thinks I overthrow all Religion and set up Man in Rebellion against God But the worst is that he would make me say which I never said or thought That all Publick Worship is sinful when forbidden and then on he runs with a mighty torrent Daniel may go to the Lions the Martyrs Fathers Counsels the Vniversal Church are all foolisher than the meanest of his Auditors I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism For he doth in effect charge me with them For it follows It 's strange that he can be sure God's Word is true and yet be so sure that Mens Laws are above it and may suspend it Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way I abhor and detest such Principles as set Mans Laws above Gods And when I gave him the State of the Controversie about Separation I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting Parties and our Church How then could he possibly infer from hence that I set Man's Laws above Gods The Question is not Whether all Publick Worship be sinful when forbidden but whether in a Nation professing true Religion some publick Worship may not be forbidden If not then an universal unlimited toleration of Turks Iews Papists Socinians Ranters c. must follow If some may be forbidden then another Question follows viz. Whether such Publick Worship as may have an evil in it antecedent to that Prohibition may not be forbidden viz. such as tends to Idolatry Sedition Schism c. and if this be allowed then it comes to this at last Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults and if they be Whether the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them And this is the utmost that matter can be driven to which I here mention to let the Reader understand what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more But the sting of these aggravations follows If the People think though they should mistake that all the Conformists are guilty of the like Can you wonder if they prefer less Guilty Pastors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last Our Conformity is a horrible scandalous sin with them and therefore they must choose better Pastors Is not this just the old Brownists Argument The Ministry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministery and therefore we must not communicate with them but choose more honest and faithful Guides But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not If it be not lawful then he condemns his own practice and takes away occasional communion if it be lawful How comes Separation to be lawful since that is never lawful but when it is necessary as it will be proved afterwards Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Ministers of the Church of England to be Vsurpers and from such they say they may lawfully separate Is it Separation saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are Vsurpers and have no true Power over them But Who are these Vsurpers among us since we have a legal establishment and we thought Law and Vsurpation contrary to each other But notwithstanding Law it is determin'd First All that come into the places of ejected Ministers are Vsurpers at least to as many of the People as do not consent to their coming in How prove you saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected London-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved and that the succeeders were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks When faithful Pastors saith he in his Plea written in the name of the Party and by consent as he saith of many of his Acquaintance are in possession if a lawful Magistrate cast them out and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fidelity I. The Princes Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church before or without the Peoples consent II. Nor will it alwayes bind the People to consent and to forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismaticks because they do it not The bottom of all this is they are Vsurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors and putting in of others And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Principles as these I leave others to Judge For upon these grounds when Salomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadok in his room any part of the People might have pleaded They never consented to Zadok 's coming in and therefore he was their High-â—riest still let Salomon do what he would he could not dissolve the relation between them without their own consent For the Question is not Whether Abiathar did not deserve to be put out but to whom it belonged to do it whether to the King or the People And whether any part of the People might still own that relation which he had before to them without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority Especially if the People had given their own consent and the thing had been done not only by Salomon but by the States of Israel as it was in our case They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government have very little insight into Affairs For it follows that a small part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and choose other Governors to themselves in opposition to those established by Law and why they should not do it upon an equal pretence in other cases
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the new-New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of old-Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
the party of the Church of Rome I judged quite otherwise of them they have particular Maxims and act by other interests But for those that have no tye to Rome it is a very strange thing to see them come to that extream as to believe that a man cannot be saved in the Church of England This is not to have much knowledge of that Confession of Faith which all the Protestant World has so highly approved and which does really deserve the praises of all good Christians that are For there cannot be any thing made more wise than that Confession and the Articles of Faith were never collected with a more just and reasonable discretion than in that excellent piece There is great reason to keep it with so much veneration in the Library of Oxford and the great Iewell deserves immortal praise for having so worthily defended it It was this that God made use of in the beginning of the Reformation of England And if it had not been as it were his work he had never blessed it in so advantageous a manner The success that it has had ought to stop the mouth of those that are the most passionate and it 's having triumphed over so many obstacles should make all the World acknowledge that God has declared himself in favour of it and that he has been visibly concerned in its establishment and that it has the truth and confirmation of his word to which in effect it owes its birth and original It is the same at present as it was when it was made and no one can reproach the Bishops for having made any change in it since that time And how then can it be imagined that it has changed its use And can there be any thing more unjust than to say that an instrument which God has heretofore employed for the instruction of so many people for the consolation of so many good men for the salvation of so many believers is now become a destructive and pernicious thing If your Confession of Faith be pure and innocent your Divine Service is so too for no one can discover any thing at all in it that tends to Idolatry You adore nothing but God alone in your Worship there is nothing that is terminated on the Creature And if there be some Ceremonies there which one shall not meet with in some other places this were to make profession of a terrible kind of Divinity to put off all Charity not to know much what souls are worth not to understand the nature of things indifferent to believe that they are able to destroy those eternally that are willing to submit themselves unto them It is to have the same hardness to believe that your Ecclesiastical Discipline can damn any For where has it been ever seen that the salvation of men was concerned for Articles of Discipline and things that regard but the out-side and order of the Church and are but as it were the bark and covering of the truth Can these things cause death and distill poyson into a soul Truly these are never accounted in the number of essential truths and as there is nothing but these that can save so there is nothing but these that can exclude men from salvation For the Episcopal Government what is there in it that is dangerous and may reasonably alarm mens consciences And if this be capable of depriving us of eternal glory and shutting the Gates of Heaven who was there that entered there for the space of fifteen hundred years since that for all that time all the Churches of the World had no other kind of Government If it were contrary to the truth and the attainment of eternal happiness is it credible that God had so highly approved it and permitted his Church to be tyrannized over by it for so many Ages For who was it that did govern it Who was it that did make up its Councils as well General as particular Who was it that combated the Heresies with which it has been at all times assaulted Was it not the Bishops And is it not to their wise conduct to which next under God his Word is beholden for its Victories and Triumphs And not to go back so far as the birth and infancy of the Church who was it that in the last Age delivered England from the error in which she was inveloped Who was it that made the truth to rise so miraculously there again Was it not the zeal and constancy of the Bishops and their Ministry that disengaged the English from that oppression under which they had groaned so long And did not their Example powerfully help forward the Reformation of all Europe In truth I think they might make the same use of this as Gregory Nazianzen did heretofore at Constantinople When he arrived there he found that Arrianism had made a very great progress in that place but then his courage his zeal his learning did so mightily weaken the party of the Hereticks that in a little time the truth appeared there again more beautiful than ever and the Church where he had so stoutly upheld it he would have to bear the name of Anastasia because he had brought the truth as it were out of the earth and cleared it from the error that lay upon it and by his continual cares had caused it as it were to come out of the Grave to a glorious Resurrection It is this too that the Bishops of England have done they saw not only one truth but almost all the fundamental truths buried under a formidable number of errors they saw the yoke of Rome heavier among them than it was any where else The difficulty that there was of succeeding in the Reformation was enough to discourage persons of an ordinary capacity and zeal Nevertheless nothing turns them from so generous a design the enemies without and those within as terrible as they seem do not fright them they undertake this great work and do not leave it till they had brought it about and raised up the truth and placed it again upon the Throne in such a manner that they might every where have monuments of this miracle and justly have called all their Churches by the name of Anastasia or Resurrection But if their Churches have not that title the thing it self belongs unto them and you shall hear nothing discoursed of in these but lectures and praises of the pure truth Which ought to oblige all good men not to separate from it but to look upon the Church of England as a very Orthodox Church Thus all the Protestants of France do those of Geneva those of Switzerland and German and those of Holland too for they did themselves a very great honour in having some Divines of England in their Synod of Dort and shewed plainly that they had a profound veneration for the Church of England And from whence does it then come that some Englishmen themselves have so ill an opinion of her at present and
The Vnreasonableness of Separation OR An Impartial Account OF THE History Nature and Pleas OF THE Present Separation FROM THE Communion of the Church of ENGLAND To which Several late LETTERS are Annexed of Eminent Protestant Divines Abroad concerning the Nature of our Differences and the Way to Compose Them By EDWARD STILLINGFLEET D. D. Dean of St. Pauls and Chaplain in Ordinary to HIS MAJESTY LONDON Printed by T. N. for Henry Mortlock at the Phoenix in St. Paul ' s Church-yard MDCLXXXI THE PREFACE IT is reported by Persons of unquestionable credit that after all the Service B. Jewel had done against the Papists upon his Preaching a Sermon at St. Paul's Cross in Defence of the Orders of this Church and of Obedience to them he was so Ungratefully and Spitefully used by the Dissenters of that Time that for his own Vindication he made a Solemn Protestation on his Death-bed That what he then said was neither to please some nor to displease others but to Promote Peace and Unity among Brethren I am far from the vanity of thinking any thing I have been able to do in the same Cause fit to be compared with the Excellent Labors of that Great Light and Ornament of this Church whose Memory is preserved to this day with due Veneration in all the Protestant Churches but the hard Usage I have met with upon the like occasion hath made such an Example more observable to me especially when I can make the same Protestation with the same sincerity as he did For however it hath been Maliciously suggested by some and too easily believed by others that I was put upon that Work with a design to inflame our Differences and to raise a fresh persecution against Dissenting Protestants I was so far from any thought tending that way that the only Motive I had to undertake it was my just Apprehension that the Destruction of the Church of England under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery was one of the most likely ways to bring it in And I have hitherto seen no cause and I believe I shall not to alter my opinion in this matter which was not rashly taken up but formed in my Mind from many years Observation of the Proceedings of that Restless Party I mean the Papists among us which hath always Aimed at the Ruine of this Church as one of the Most Probable Means if others failed to compass their Ends. As to their Secret and more Compendious ways of doing Mischief they lie too far out of our View till the Providence of God at the same time discovers and disappoints them but this was more open and visible and although it seemed the farther way about yet they promised themselves no small success by it Many Instruments and Engines they made use of in this design many ways and times they set about it and although they met with several disappointments yet they never gave it over but Would it not be very strange that when they can appear no longer in it others out of meer Zeal against Popery should carry on the Work for them This seems to be a great Paradox to unthinking People who are carried away with meer Noise and Pretences and hope those will secure them most against the Fears of Popery who talk with most Passion and with least Understanding against it whereas no persons do really give them greater advantages than these do For where they meet only with intemperate Railings and gross Misunderstandings of the State of the Controversies between them and us which commonly go together the more subtle Priests let such alone to spend their Rage and Fury and when the heat is over they will calmly endevour to let them see how grosly they have been deceived in some things and so will more easily make them believe they are as much deceived in all the rest And thus the East and West may meet at last and the most furious Antagonists may become some of the easiest Converts This I do really fear will be the case of many Thousands among us who now pass for most zealous Protestants if ever which God forbid that Religion should come to be Vppermost in England It is therefore of mighty consequence for preventing the Return of Popery that Men rightly understand what it is For when they are as much afraid of an innocent Ceremony as of real Idolatry and think they can Worship Images and Adore the Host on the same grounds that they may use the Sign of the Cross or Kneel at the Communion when they are brought to see their mistake in one case they will suspect themselves deceived in the other also For they who took that to be Popery which is not will be apt to think Popery it self not so bad as it was represented and so from want of right understanding the Differences between us may be easily carried from one Extreme to the other For when they find the undoubted Practices of the Ancient Church condemned as Popish and Antichristian by their Teachers they must conclude Popery to be of much greater Antiquity than really it is and when they can Trace it so very near the Apostles times they will soon believe it setled by the Apostles themselves For it will be very hard to perswade any considering Men that the Christian Church should degenerate so soon so unanimously so universally as it must do if Episcopal Government and the use of some significant Ceremonies were any parts of that Apostacy Will it not seem strange to them that when some Human Polities have preserved their First Constitution so long without any considerable Alteration that the Government instituted by Christ and setled by his Apostles should so soon after be changed into another kind and that so easily so insensibly that all the Christian Churches believed they had still the very same Government which the Apostles left them Which is a matter so incredible that those who can believe such a part of Popery could prevail so soon in the Christian Church may be brought upon the like grounds to believe that many others did So mighty a prejudice doth the Principles of our Churches Enemies bring upon the Cause of the Reformation And those who foregoe the Testimony of Antiquity as all the Opposers of the Church of England must do must unavoidably run into insuperable difficulties in dealing with the Papists which the Principles of our Church do lead us through For we can justly charge Popery as an unreasonable Innovation when we allow the undoubted Practices and Government of the Ancient Church for many Ages after Christ. But it is observed by Bishop Sanderson That those who reject the Usages of our Church as Popish and Antichristian when Assaulted by Papists will be apt to conclude Popery to be the old Religion which in the purest and Primitive Times was Professed in all Christian Churches throughout the World Whereas the sober English Protestant is able by the Grace of God with much
Satan the Enemy of Mankind and the Pope the Enemy of Christendom By these differences the Enemies of our Religion gain this That nothing can be established by Law in the Protestant Religion whose every part is opposed by one or other of her own Professors so that things continuing loose and confused the Papists have their opportunity to urge their way which is attended with Order and Government and our Religion continuing thus distracted and divided some vile wretches lay hold of the Arguments on one side to confute the other and so hope at last to destroy all Dr. Sutcliffe said long ago That Wise Men apprehended these unhappy Questions about Indifferent things to be managed by the subtle Jesuits thereby to disturb the Peace and Settlement of our Church until at last they enjoy their long expected opportunity to set up themselves and restore the exploded Tyranny and Idolatry of the Church of Rome Among Mr. Selden's MSS. there is mentionâ—d an odd Prophecy That Popery should decay about 1500 and be restored about 1700 which is there said to be most likely by means of our Divisions which threaten the Reformation upon the Interest of Religion and open advantages to the Enemies of it and nothing is there said to be so likely to prevent it as a firm establishment of sound Doctrine Discipline and Worship in this Church Among the Iesuit Contzens directions for reducing Popery into a Country the most considerable are 1. That it be done under a pretence of ease to tender Consciences which will gain a reputation to the Prince and not seem to be done from his own Inclination but out of kindness to his People 2. That when Liberty is granted then the Parties be forbid to contend with each other for that will make way the more easily for one side to prevail and the Prince will be commended for his love of Peace 3 That those who suspect the Design and Preach against it be traduced as Men that Preaâ—h very unseasonable Doctrine that theâ—â— are Proud Self-opiniators and Enemies to Peace and Union But the special Advice he gives to a Catholick Prince is 4. To make as much use of the Divisions of his Enemies as of the Agreement of his Friends How much the Popish Party here hath followed these Counsels will easily appear by reflection upon their behaviour these last Twenty years But that which more particularly reaches to our own case is the Letter of Advice given to F. Young by Seignior Ballarini concerning the best way of managing the Popish Interest in England upon His Majesties Restauration wherein are several very remarkable things This Letter was found in F. Young's Study after his death and was translated out of Italian and printed in the Collection before mention'd The First Advice is To make the Obstruction of Settlement their great design especially upon the Fundamental Constitutions of the Kingdom whereunto if things should fall they would be more firm than ever 2. The next thing is To remove the jealousies raised by Prin Baxter c. of their design upon the late Factions and to set up the prosperous way of Fears and Jealousies of the King and Bishops 3. To make it appear under-hand how near the Doctrine Worship and Discipline of the Church of England comes to us at how little distance their Common-Prayer is from our Mass and that the wisest and ablest Men of that way are so moderate that they would willingly come over to us or at least meet us half way hereby the more stayed Men will become more odious and others will run out of all Religion for fear of Popery 4. Let there be an Indulgence promoted by the Factious and seconded by you 5. That the Trade and Treasure of the Nation may be engrossed between themselves and other discontented Parties 6. That the Bishops and Ministers of the Church of England be Aspersed as either Worldly and Careless on the one hand or so Factious on the other that it were well they were removed These are some of those excellent Advices then given and how well they have been followed we all know For according to this Counsel when they could not hinder the Settlement then The great thing they aimed at for many years was the breaking in pieces the Constitution of this Church by a General Toleration This Coleman owned at his Trial and after Sentence Declared That possibly he might be of an Opinion that Popery might come in if Liberty of Conscience had been granted The Author of the Two Conferences between L'Chese and the Four Jesuits owns the Declaration of Indulgence 1671 2 to be of the Papists procuring but he saith the Presbyterians presently suspected the Kindness and like wise Men closed with the Conformists and refused the Bait however specious it seemed when they saw the Hook that lay under it It was so far from this that when one of the furious Dissenters suspected the kindness and made Queries upon the Declaration wherein he represented it as a Stratagem to introduce Popery and Arbitrary Government one of the more moderate Party among them Wrote a Publick Vindication of their accepting the Licences wherein he declared to the World in their Name That they were not concerned what the Secret Design might be so long as the thing was good And why saith he do you insinuate Jealousies Have not we Publick and the Papists only Private Allowance In fine we are thankful for the Honor put upon us to be Publick in our Meetings Was this the Suspicion they had of the Kindness and their Wisdom in joyning with the Conformists If such bold and notorious Vntruths are published now when every one that can remember but 8 years backward can disprove them What account may we expect will be given to Posterity of the Passages of these Times if others do not take care to set them right And I am so far from believing that they then closed with the Conformists that I date the Presbyterian Separation chiefly from that time For Did not they take out Indulgences Build Meeting Places and keep up Separate Congregations ever since And did not those who before seem'd most inclinable to hold Communion with our Churches then undertake in Print to defend the lawfulness of these Separate Meetings upon such Principles as will justifie any Separation Vpon this many of those who frequented our Churches before withdrew themselves and since they have formed and continued Separate Bodies and upon the death of one Minister have chosen another in his room And What is a Formal Separation if this be not Then the Ejected Ministers resorted to Cities and Corporations not to supply the necessities of those who wanted them but to gather Churches among them For a very credible Person informs us That in the City he lived in where there were not above 30 or 40 that ordinarily refused the Publick and met Privately before the Indulgence there were Ten Non-conformist Ministers that
have against our Church For the proof of this I refer the Reader to the BOOK it self This then being my opinion concerning their Practices Was this a fault in me to shew some reason for it And How could I do that without proving those Practices to be sinful and if they were sinful How could they who knowingly and deliberately continue in the Practice of them be innocent What influence the prejudices of Education the Authority of Teachers the almost Invincible Ignorance of some weaker People and the Vncurable Biass of some Mens Minds may have to lessen their Guilt I meddle not with but the Nature of the Actions and the Tendency of them which I then declared to be Sinful and I am so far from being alter'd in my Iudgment by any of the Answers I have seen and I have read all that have been published that I am much more confirmed in it But Dr. O. saith He had seen a Collection made of severe reflections by the hand of a Person of Honor with his Judgment upon them I wish the Doctor had favour'd me with a sight of them but at present it is somewhat hard for me to make the Objections and Answers too And it was not so fairly done to mention them unless he had produced them Therefore to the â—nknown Objections I hope no Answer is expected But there is one expression wherein I am charged with a Scurrilous Sarcasm or a very Unchristian Judging Mens hearts or a Ridiculous piece of Nonsense viz. When I say That the most godly People among them can the lest endure to be to told of their Faults Now saith Mr. A. How can they be most Godly who cannot bear reproof of their Faults which is a main part of Godliness I am really sorry some of my Answerers have so much made good the Truth of that Saying in its plainest Sense But there needs no more to clear my Intention in it but to consider of whom it is spoken viz. of those who will not bear being told of the Sin of Separation by their own Teachers For my Words are Is it that they Fear the Reproaches of the People which some few of the most Eminent Persons among them have found they must undergo if they touch upon this Subject for I know not how it comes to pass that the most Godly People among them can the lest endure to be told of their Faults In all which words I had a particular respect to the Case of Mr. Baxter who after he had with great honesty published his Cure of Divisions and therein sharply rebuked the Separating Dividing Humor of the People who pretended most to Religious Strictness he met with bitter Reproaches from them for the sake of this Freedom that he was foced to Publish a Defence of his Cure in Vindication of himself from them wherein he saith He was judged by them to be too Censorious of them and too sharp in telling them of that which he did not doubt to be their Sin And again If I be mistaken Should you be so impatient as not to bear with one that in such an Opinion differeth from you And why should not you bear with my Dissent as well as I do with yours Again Why should not you bear with lesser contradiction when others must bear with far greater from you Will you proclaim you selves to be the more impatient You will then make Men think you are the most guilty And a little after And yet you that should be most patient take it for a heinous crime and injury to be told that you wrong them and that you judge too hardly of them and that their Communion is not unlawful And when we joyn to this what he saith elsewhere that they are the most Self-conceited Professors who will not be ruled by their Ministers but are most given to Division and Separation in a passage before mention'd there needs no more to vindicate the truth of this saying than to shew that the most Self-conceited do often pass for the most Godly among them which is a figure so common so easie to be understood that it needs no more Apology than our Saviours calling the Pharisees Righteous Men and saying they were so whole as to need no Physician And I cannot think such figures which were used by our Saviour unfit for a Pulpit But notwithstanding all the care I took to prevent giving any just occasion of Offence my Sermon had not been long abroad but I heard of Great Clamors against it At first it went down quietly enough and many of the People began to Read and Consider it being pleased to find so weighty and so necessary a Point debated with so much Calmness and freedom from Passion Which being discerned by the Leaders and Managers of the Parties it was soon resolved that the Sermon must be cried down and the People Disswaded by all means from Reading it If any of them were Talked with about it they shrunk up their Shoulders and looked Sternly and shook their Heads and hardly forbore some Bitter Words both of the Author and the Sermon Vpon this followed a great Cry and Noise both in City and Country against it and some honest persons really pittied me thinking I had done some very ill thing so many People were of a sudden so set against me and spoke so bitterly of my Sermon I Asked What the matter was What False Doctrine I had Preached Did they suspect I was turn'd Papist at such a Time when all the Nation was set against Popery who had Written so much against it when others who are now so fierce were afraid to appear It was something they said had Angred them sorely but they could not tell What which made me Read my Sermon over again to see what Offensive Passages there might be in it after all I could see no just cause for any Offence unless it were that I perswaded the Dissenters to Submit to the Church of England and not the Church of England to Submit to them And this I believe lay at the bottom of many Mens Stomacks They would have had me Humor'd the Growing Faction which under a Pretence of Zeal against Popery Designed to Overthrow the Church of England or at lest have Preached for Alterations and Abatements and taking away Ceremonies and Subscriptions and leaving them full Liberty to do what they pleased and then I might have gained their good opinion and been thought to have Preached a very Seasonable Sermon But supposing my own private opinion were never so much for some Abatements to be made that might tend to strengthen and unite Protestants and were consistent with our National Settlement Had it been seasonable to have spoken of the Alteration of Laws before Magistrates and Judges who are tied up to the Laws in being Is it fit for private persons when Laws are in force to take upon them to Iudge what Laws are fit to continue and what not I think
takes notice of and the rest do not for else he offers little or nothing but what is in the others which is that when I say our differences are condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad he saith if it be so they may thank their Friends at home that have misrepresented them to the World Therefore to give satisfaction as to the judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now-living I have subjoyned to the following Treatise some late Letters of theirs to a Person of great Honor and Dignity in our Church to shew the Unlawfulness of Separation from the Communion of the Church of England Which were not written by such who had only a partial representation from others at a distance but two of them by those who have been among us and have been curious observers both of the Separate Meetings and of the Customs of our Churches and the Third by the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude And iâ— a Council could be called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the Unlawfulness of the Present Separation But before I conclude this Preface there is a great Objection yet to be removed which concerns the Time of Publishing this Treatise which some do seem to think to be very unseasonable when there is so much talk of Union among Protestants and there appears a more General Inclination to it than formerly And what say they can the laying open the Weakness of Dissenters tend to but to Provoke and Exasperate them and consequently to obstruct the Union so much desired In so doing I shall appear to resent more the Injuries done to my Self than the Mischief which may come to the Protestant Religion if this opportunity be not embraced for making an Union among Protestants This is the force of the Objection To which I Answer God forbid that I should either design or do any thing which tended to obstruct so Blessed a Work as a Firm and Lasting Vnion among Protestants would be But my Business is to shew the Vnreasonableness of those Principles and Practises which hinder Men from such an Vnion and lay a Foundation for Perpetual and Endless Separations For upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dissenting Brethren let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves yet others may make use of their Grounds and carry on the Differences as high as ever Which will render all Attempts of Vnion vain and leave the same Weapons ready to be taken up by others If the Vnion so much talked of be such as tends to the lessening and not to the increasing of our Differences if it be for strengthning and supporting the Protestant Religion and not rather for weaking and betraying it by laying it more open to the Assaults of our Enemies no Man shall be more ready to promote it than I no Man will rejoyce more in the Accomplishment of it But universal liberty is quite another thing from Union as much as looseing is from binding up and it is strange if that which the Papists not long since thought the best means to bring in Popery should now be looked on as the most effectual way to keep it out But suppose the Indulgence be at present strictly limited to Dissenting Protestants are we sure it shall always so continue Will not the same Reasons as to scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. extend farther when occasion serves and the Popish Religion get footing on the Dissenters grounds Where hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Let the State of the Northern Kingdoms as to this matter be Compared with the Number of Papists in the United Provinces And it will be found impossible to Root out Popery where Toleration is allowed 1 Because of the various ways 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 2 Because it will be thought great hardship when Mens heats are over for them only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest Fanaticks are allowed it 3 Because the diversity of Sects which will be kept up by this means will be always thought a plausible argument to draw Men to the Popish pretences of Unity 4 Because the allowed Sects will in probability grow more insolent upon a Legal Indulgence and bid defiance to the settled Constitution as we have seen already by the yet visible effects of the former Indulgence If Laws would alter the temper of Mens minds and make proud selfwilled froward and passionate Men become meek and humble gentle and peaceable then it were great pitty some Men had not had the Law on their side long ago But is this to be looked for are we to expect the Laws of Men should work more upon them than the Grace of God If such then continue peevish and quarelsome full of wrath and bitterness against all that are not of their minds and they meet with Men as froward and contentious as themselves will this look like the Union of Protestants And By-standers will be apt to say if this be all that you mean by Union of Protestants viz. a Liberty to Pray and Preach and to Write and Dispute one against another there seems to be much more of sense and reason in the Papal pretence to Unity and Infallibility But what then Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants who agree with us in all Doctrinal Articles of our Church and only scruple the use of a few Ceremonies and some late Impositions shall these differences still be continued when they may be so easily removed And so many useful Men be incouraged and taken into the Constitution Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies and some late Declarations and doubtful expressions beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences and the Peace and Stability of this Church As to this material Question I shall crave leave to deliver my opinion freely and impartially and that I. With respect to the Case of the People the Terms of whose Union with us is acknowledged by our Brethren to be so much easier than their own But these are of two sorts 1. Some allow the use of the Liturgy but say they cannot joyn in Communion with us because the participation of the Sacraments hath such Rites and Ceremonies annexed to it which they think unlawful and therefore till these be removed or left indifferent they dare not joyn with us in Baptism or the Lords Supper because in the one the Cross is used and in the other Kneeling is required As to these I answer 1 Upon the most diligent search I could make into these things I find no good ground for any scruple of Conscience as to the use of these Ceremonies and as little as any
up Scholars or to teach Gentlemens Sons University Learning because this may be justly looked on as a design to propagate Schism to Posterity and to lay a Foundation for the disturbance of future Generations II. As to the Case of the ejected Mininisters I have these things to offer 1. That bare subscription of the Thirty six Articles concerning doctrinal Points be not allowed as sufficient to qualifie any man for a Living or any Church-preferment for these Reasons First Any Lay-man upon these Terms may not only be capable of a Living but may take upon him to Administer the Sacraments which was never allowed in any well constituted Church in the Christian World And such an allowance among us in stead of setling and uniting us will immediately bring things into great confusion and give mighty advantage to the Papists against our Church And we have reason to fear a Design of this Nature under a pretence of Union of Protestants tends to the subversion of this Church and throwing all things into confusion which at last will end in Popery Secondly This will bring a Faction into the Church which will more endanger it than external opposition For such Men will come in triumphantly having beaten down three of the Thirty nine Articles and being in legal possession of their Places will be ready to dâ—fie and contemn those who submitted to the rest and to glory in their Conquests and draw Followers after them as the victorious Confessors against Prelacy and Ceremonies And can they imagin those of the Church of England will see the Reputation of the Church or their own to suffer so much and not appear in their own Vindication Things are not come to that pass nor will they suddenly be that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause We do heartily and sincerely desire Union with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it If any Expedient can be found out for the ease of other Mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it But if the Design be to bring them in as a Faction to bridle and controll the Episcopal Power by setting up forty Bishops in a Diocese against one if it be for them to trample upon the Church of England and not to submit to its Order and Government upon fair and moderate terms let them not call this a Design of Union but the giving Law to a Party to oppose the Church of England And what the success of this will be let wise Men judge Thirdly If a subcription to Thirty six Articles were sufficient by the Statute 13 El. c. 12. I do not understand how by virtue of that Statute a Man is bound publickly to read the Thirty nine Articles in the Church and the Testimonial of his Subscription on pain of being deprived ipso facto if he do not For the L. Ch. I. Coke faith That subscription to the 39 Articles is required by force of of the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. c. 12. And he adds That the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto and that a conditional subscription to them was not sufficient was resolved by all the Judges in England But how a Man should be deprived ipso facto for not subscribing and Reading the 39 Articles as appears by the Cases mentioned in Coke and yet be required onely to subscribe to 36 by the same Statute is a thing too hard for me to conceive 2. But notwithstanding this if any temper can be found out as to the manner of Subscription that may give ease to the scruples of our Brethren and secure the Peace of the Church the desired Union may be attained without that apparent danger of increasing the Factions among us And this I suppose may be done by an absolute subscription to all those Articles which concern the Doctrine of the true Christian Faith and the Use of the Sacraments and a solemn Promise under their hand or Subscription of Peaceable submission as to the rest so as not to oppose or contradict them either in Preaching or Writing upon the same penalty as if they had not subscribed to the 36. Which may be a more probable means to keep the Church in quiet than forceing a more rigorous subscription upon them or leaving them at their full liberty 3. As to the other subscription required 1. Jac. to the 3 Articles The first is provided for by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy The third is the same with the subscription to the 39 Articles And as to the second about the Book of Common Prayer c. It ought to be considered 1 Whether for the satisfaction of the scrupulous some more doubtful and obscure passages may not yet be explained or amended Whether the New Translation of the Psalms were not fitter to be used at least in Parochial Churches Whether portions of Canonical Scripture were not better put in stead of Apocrypha Lessons Whether the Rubrick about Salvation of Infants might not be restored to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so the present exceptions against it be removed Whether those expressions which suppose the strict exercise of Discipline in Burying the Dead were not better left at liberty in our present Case Such a Review made by Wise and Peaceable Men not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far from being a dishonour to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it 2 Upon such a Review whether it be not great Reason that all Persons who Officiate in the Church be not only tied to a constant Use of it in all Publick Offices as often as they administer them which they ought in Person frequently to do but to declare at their first entrance upon a Parochial Charge their approbation of the Use of it after their own Reading of it that so the People may not suspect them to carry on a factious Design under an outward pretence of Conformity to the Rules of the Church they live in 3 Whether such a solemn Using the Liturgy and approbation and promise of the Use of it may not be sufficient in stead of the late Form of declaring their Assent and Consent which hath been so much scrupled by our Brethren These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union and which I suppose may be granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church There are other things very desireable towards the happiness and flourishing of this Church as the exercise of Discipline in Parochial Churches in a due subordination to
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit Church-power to a single Congregation but the General Rules extend it further Sect. 8. Of Diocesan Episcopacy the Question about it stated But one Bishop in a City in the best Churches though many Assemblies Sect. 9. Diocesan Episcopacy clearly proved in the African Churches The extent of S. Austin's Diocess Sect. 10. Diocesan Episcopacy of Alexandria The largeness of Theodoret's Diocese the Testimony of his Epistle cleared from all Mr. B's late Objections Sect. 11. Diocese Episcopacy not repugnant to any Institution of Christ proved from Mr. B. himself Sect. 12. The Power of Presbyters in our Church Sect. 13. The Episcopal Power succeeds the Apostolical proved from many Testimonies Sect. 14. What Power of Discipline is left to Parochial Churches as to Admission Sect. 15. Whether the power of Suspension be no part of Church Discipline Sect. 16 17. Of the defect of Discipline and whether it overthrows the being of our Parochial Churches Sect. 18. Of National Churches and the grounds on which they
that not only occasionally and at certain seasons but they maintained constant and fixed Communion with our Church as the members of it Sect. 3. Thus matters stood as to Communion with our Church in the days of Edward VI. but as soon as the Persecution began in Queen Mary's time great numbers were forced to betake themselves to foreign parts whereof some went to Zurick others to Basil others to Strasburg and others to Frankford Grindal in a Letter to B. Ridley saith they were nigh 100 Students and Ministers then in Exile These with the people in all other places Geneva excepted kept to the Orders established in our Church but at Frankford some began to be very busie in Reforming our Liturgy leaving out many things and adding others which occasioned the following Troubles of Frankford The true ground whereof is commonly much mis-represented Mr. Baxter saith The difference was between those which strove for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free-way of praying i.e. as he explains it from the present sense and habit of the Speaker but that this is a great mistake will appear from the account published of them A. D. 1575. by one that was a Friend to the Dissenting Party From which it appears That no sooner were the English arriv'd at Frankford but the Minister of the French Congregation there came to them and told them he had obtained from the Magistrates the freedom of a Church for those who came out of England but especially for the French they thanked him and the Magistrates for so much kindness but withal let them understand this would be little benefit to the English unless they might have the liberty of performing all the Offices of Religion in their own Tongue Upon an Address made to the Senate this request was granted them and they were to make use of the French Church at different times as the French and they could agree but with this express Proviso that they should not dissent from the French in Doctrine or Ceremonies lest they should thereby Minister occasion of offence But afterwards it seems the Magistrates did not require them to be strictly tied up to the French Ceremonies so they did mutually agree Upon this they perused the English Order and endeavour'd to bring it as near as they could to the French Model by leaving out the Responses the Letany Surplice and many other things and adding a larger Confession more suitable to the State and Time after which a Psalm was Sung then the Minister after a short Prayer for Divine Assistance according to Calvins Custom was to proceed to the Sermon which being ended then followed a General Prayer for all Estates particularly for England ending with the Lords Prayer and so repeating the Articles of the Creed and another Psalm Sung the People were dismissed with the Blessing By which we see here was not the least controversie whether a Liturgy or not but whether the Order of Service was not to be accommodated as much as might be to the French Model However when they sent to the English in other places to resort thither by reason of the great Conveniencies they enjoy'd and acquainted them with what they had done it gave great offence to them which they expressed in their Letters Those of Zurick sent them word They determined to use no other Order than that which was last established in England and in another Letter They desire to be assured from them that if they removed thither they should all joyn in the same Order of Service concerning Religion which was in England last set forth by King Edward To this the Congregation of Frankford returned Answer That they could not in all points warrant the Full Vse of the Book of Service which they impute to their present Circumstances in which they suppose such Alterations would be allowed but they intended not hereby to deface the worthy Lawes and Ordinances of King Edward These Learned Men of Strasburg understanding their resolutions send Grindall to them with a Letter subscribed by 16 wherein they intreat them To reduce the English Church there as much as possible to the Order lately set forth in England lest say they by much altering of the same they should seem to condemn the chief Authors thereof who as they now suffer so are they most ready to confirm that fact with the price of their Bloods and should also both give occasion to our Adversaries to accuse our Doctrine of Imperfection and us of Mutability and the Godly to Doubt of that Truth wherein before they were perswaded and to hinder their coming thither which before they had purposed And to obtain their desire they tell them They had sent Persons for that end to Negotiate this Affair with the Magistrates and in case they obtained their Request they promised to come and joyn with them and they did not question the English in other places would do the same Notwithstanding the weight of these Reasons and the desireableness of their Brethrens company in that time of Exile they persist in their former resolutions not to have the Entire English Liturgy for by this time Knox was come from Geneva being chosen Minister of the Congregation However they returned this Answer to Strasburg That they made as little Alteration as was possible for certain Ceremonies the Country would not bear and they did not dissent from those which lie at the Ransom of their Bloods for the Doctrine whereof they have made a most worthy Confession About this time some suggested that they should take the Order of Geneva as farthest from Superstition but Knox declined this till they had advised with the Learned Men at Strasburg Zurick Emden c. knowing that the Odium of it would be thrown upon him But finding their Zeal and Concernment for the English Liturgy he with Whittingham and some others drew up an Abstract of it and sent it to Calvin desiring his Judgment of it Who upon perusal of it being throughly heated in a Cause that so nearly concerned him writes a very sharp Letter directed to the Brethren at Frankford gently Rebuking them for their unseasonable Contentions about these matters but severely Reproving the English Divines who stood up for the English Liturgy when the Model of Geneva stood in Competition with it And yet after all his Censures of it he Confesses The things he thought most unfit were Tolerable but he blames them if they did not choose a better when they might choose but he gives not the least incouragement to Separation if it were continued and he declares for his own part how easie he was to yield in all indifferent things such as External Rites are And he was so far in his Judgment from being for Free Prayer or making the constant use of a Liturgy a Ground of Separation as Dr. O. doth that when he delivered his Opinion with the greatest Freedom to the then Protector about the best method of
Reformation he declares That he did mightily approve a Certain Form from which Men ought not to vary both to prevent the inconveniencies which some Mens folly would betray them to in the free way of Praying and to manifest the General Consent of the Churches in their Prayers and to stop the vain affectation of some who love to be shewing some new things Let Mr. Br. now Judge Whether it were likely that the Controversie then at Frankford was as he saith between them that were for the English Liturgy and others that were for a free way of Praying when Calvin to whom the Dissenters appealed was so much in his Judgment against the latter And it appears by Calvin's Letter to Cox and his Brethren that the State of the Case at Frankford had not been truly represented to him which made him Write with greater sharpness than otherwise he would have done and he expresses his satisfaction that the matter was so composed among them when by Dr. Cox his means the English Liturgy was brought into use at Frankford And to excuse himself for his liberal censures before he mentions Lights as required by the Book which were not in the second Liturgy of Edward the Sixth So that either they deceived him who sent him the Abstract or he was put to this miserable shift to defend himself the matter being ended contrary to his expectation For although upon the receipt of Calvin's Letter the Order of Geneva had like to have been presently voted in yet there being still some Fast Friends to the English Service they were fain to compromise the matter and to make use of a Mixt Form for the present But Dr. Cox and others coming thither from England and misliking these Alterations declared That they were for having the Face of an English Church there and so they began the Letany next Sunday which put Knox into so great a Rage that in stead of pursuing his Text which was directly contrary he made it his business to lay open the nakedness of our Church as far as his Wit and Ill Will would carry him He charged the Service-Book with Superstition Impurity and Imperfection and the Governors of our Church with slackness in Reformation want of Discipline with the business of Hooper allowing Pluralities all the ill things he could think on When Cox and his Party with whom at this time was our excellent Iewel were admitted among them they presently forbad Knox having any thing farther to do in that Congregation who being complained of soon after for Treason against the Emperor in a Book by him Published he was forced to leave the City and to retire to Geneva whither most of his Party followed him And thus saith Grindal in his Letter to Bishop Ridley The Church at Frankford was well quieted by the Prudence of Mr. Cox and others which met there for that purpose Sect. 4. It is observed by the Author of the Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works that this Controversie was not carried with them out of England but they received New Impressions from the places whither they went For as those who were Exiles in Henry the Eighth's time as particularly Hooper who lived many years in Switzerland brought home with them a great liking of the Churches Model where they had lived which being such as their Country would bear they supposed to be nearer Apostolical Simplicity being far enough from any thing of Pomp or Ceremony which created in them an aversion to the Ornaments and Vestments here used So now upon this new Persecution those who had Friendship at Geneva as Knox and Whittingham or were otherwise much obliged by those of that way as the other English were who came first to Frankford were soon possessed with a greater liking of their Model of Divine Service than of our own And when Men are once engaged in Parties and several Interests it is a very hard matter to remove the Prejudices which they have taken in especially when they have great Abettors and such whose Authority goes beyond any Reason with them This is the True Foundation of those Unhappy Differences which have so long continued among us about the Orders and Ceremonies of our Church For when Calvin and some others found that their Counsel was not like to be followed in our Reformation our Bishops proceeding more out of Reverence to the Ancient Church than meer opposition to Popery which some other Reformers made their Rules they did not cease by Letters and other wayes to insinuate that our Reformation was imperfect as long as any of the Dregs of Popery remained So they called the Vse of those Ceremonies which they could not deny to have been far more Ancient than the great Apostasy of the Roman Church Calvin in his Letter to the Protector Avows this to be the best Rule of Reformation To go as far from Popery as they could and therefore what Habits and Ceremonies had been abused in the time of Popery were to be removed lest others were hardened in their Superstition thereby but at last he yields to this moderation in the case That such Ceremonies might be reteined as were easie and fitted to the Capacities of the People provided they were not such as had their beginning from the Devil or Antichrist i.e. were not first begun in the time of Popery Now by this Rule of Moderation our Church did proceed for it took away all those Ceremonies which were of late invention As in Baptism of all the multitude of Rites in the Roman Church it reserved in the Second Liturgy only the Cross after Baptism which was not so used in the Roman Church for there the Sign of the Cross is used in the Scrutinies before Baptism and the Anointing with the Chrysm in vertice after it in stead of these our Church made choice of the Sign of the Cross after Baptism being of Uncontroulable Antiquity and not used till the Child is Baptized In the Eucharist in stead of Fifteen Ceremonies required in the Church of Rome our Church hath only appointed Kneeling I say appointed for although Kneeling at the Elevation of the Host be strictly required by the Roman Church yet in the Act of Receiving it is not as manifestly appears by the Popes manner of Receiving which is not Kneeling but either Sitting as it was in Bonaventures time or after the fashion of Sitting or a little Leaning upon his Throne as he doth at this day therefore our Church taking away the Adoration at the Elevation lest it should seem to recede from the Practise of Antiquity which received the Eucharist in the Posture of Adoration then used hath appointed Kneeling to be observed of all Communicants In stead of the great number of Consecrated Vestments in the Roman Church it only retained a plain Linnen Garment which was unquestionably used in the times of St. Hierome and St. Augustin And lastly As to the Episcopal Habits they are retained only as
long as the Church consisteth of Mortal Men will fall out and arise among them even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof But in the case of our Church they pleaded that the Corruptions were so many and great as to overthrow the very Constitution of a Church So Barrow saith They do not cut off the members of our Church from Gods Election or from Christ but from being Members of a True Constituted Church On the other side the Non-conformists granted there were many and great Corruptions in our Church but not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it or make Separation from our Parochial Assemblies to be necessary or lawful So that the force of all their Reasonings against Separation lay in these two Suppositions 1. That nothing could Justifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrew the being or constitution of it 2. That the Corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the Constitution of it The making out of these two will tend very much to the clear Stating of this present Controversie 1. That nothing could Iustifie Separation from our Church but such Corruptions which overthrow the being or constitution of it Barrow and his Brethren did not think they could satisfie their Consciences in Separation unless they proved our Churches to be no true Churches For here they assign the Four Causes of their Separation to be Want of a right gathering our Churches at first False Worship Antichristian Ministery and Government These Reasons say they all Men may see prove directly these Parish Assemblies not to be the true established Churches of Christ to which any faithful Christian may joyn himself in this estate especially when all Reformation unto the rules of Christ's Testament is not only denied but resisted blasphemed persecuted These are the words of the First and Chiefest Separatists who suffered death rather than they would foregoe these Principles We condemn not say they their Assemblies barely for a mixture of good and bad which will alwayes be but for want of an orderly gathering or constitution at first we condemn them not for some faults in the Calling of the Ministry but for having and reteining a false Antichristian Ministry imposed upon them we forsake not their Assemblies for some faults in their Government or Discipline but for standing subject to a Popish and Antichristian Government Neither refrain we their Worship for some light imperfections but because their Worship is Superstitious devised by Men Idolatrous according to that patched Popish Portuise their Service-Book according unto which their Sacraments and whole Administration is performed and not by the Rules of Christ's Testament So that these poor deluded Creatures saw very well that nothing but such a Charge which overthrew the very being and constitution of our Churches the Doctrine of Faith being allowed to be sound could justifie their Separation not meer promiscuous Congregations nor mixt Communions not defect in the Exercise of Discipline not some Corruptions in the Ministry or Worship but such gross corruptions as took away the Life and Being of a Church as they supposed Idolatrous Worship and an Antichristian Ministry to do If Mr. Giffard saith Barrow can prove the Parish Assemblies in this estate true and established Churches then we would shew him how free we are from Schism The same Four Reasons are insisted on as the Grounds of their Separation in the Brownists Apology to King Iames by Ainsworth Iohnson and the rest of them Ainsworth frames his Argument for Separation thus That Church which is not the true Church of Christ and of God ought not by any true Christian to be continued or Communicated with but must be forsaken and separated from and a true Church sought and ioyned unto c. But the Church of England is before proved not to be the true Church of Christ and of God therefore it ought to be separated from c. By which we see the Greatest Separatists that were then never thought it Lawful to Separate from our Churches if they were true On the other side those who opposed the Separation with greatest zeal thought nothing more was necessary for them to disprove the Separation then to prove our Churches to be true Churches R. Brown from whom the Party received their denomination thought he had a great advantage against Cartwright the Ringleader of the Non-conformists to prove the Necessity of Separation because he seemed to make Discipline Essential to a Church and therefore since he complained of the want of Discipline here he made our Church not to be a true Church and consequently that Separation was necessary T. C. Answers That Church Assemblies are builded by Faith only on Christ the Foundation the which Faith so being whatsoever is wanting of that which is commanded or remaining of that which is forbidden is not able to put that Assembly from the right and title of so being the Church of Christ. For that Faith can admit no such thing as giveth an utter overthrow and turning upside down of the truth His meaning is wherever the true Doctrine of Faith is received and professed there no defects or corruptions can overthrow the being of a True Church or Iustifie Separation from it For he addeth although besides Faith in the Son of God there be many things necessary for every Assembly yet be they necessary to the comely and stable being and not simply to the being of the Church And in this respect saith he the Lutheran Churches which he there calls the Dutch Assemblies which beside the maym of Discipline which is common to our Churches are grossely deceived in the matter of the Supper are notwithstanding holden in the Roll of the Churches of God Was not Jerusalem saith he after the Return from Babylon the City of the Great King until such time as Nehemias came and Builded on the Walls of the City To say therefore it is none of the Church because it hath not received this Discipline methinks is all one with this as if a Man would say It is no City because it hath no Wall or that it is no Vineyard because it hath neither Hedge nor Ditch It is not I grant so sightly a City or Vineyard nor yet so safe against the Invasion of their several Enemies which lie in wait for them but yet they are truly both Cities and Vineyards And whereas T. C. seemed to make Discipline Essential to the Church his Defender saith He did not take Discipline there strictly for the Political Guiding of the Church with respect to Censures but as comprehending all the Behaviour concerning a Church in outward Duties i. e. the Duties of Pastor and People Afterwards as often as the Non-conformists set themselves to disprove the Separation their main Business was To Prove our Churches to be True Churches As in a Book Entituled Certain Positions hâ—ld and maintained by some Godly Ministers of
the Gospel against those of the Separation which was part of that Book afterwards Published by W. R. and called A Grave and Modest Confutation of the Separatists The Ground-work whereof as Mr. Ainsworth calls it is thus laid 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. If this was the Ground-work of the Non-conformists in those days those who live in ours ought well to consider it if they regard their Salvation And for this Assertion of theirs they bring Three Reasons 1. For that they Enjoy and Ioyn together in the Vse of these outward Means which God in his Word hath ordained for the Gathering of an Invisible Church i. e. Preaching of the Gospel and Administration of the Sacraments 2. For that their Whole Church maketh Profession of the True Faith and Hold and Teach c. all Truths Fundamental So we put their Two Reasons into One because they both relate to the Profession of the Truth Faith which say they is that which giveth life and being to a Visible Church and upon this Profession we find many that have been incorporated into the Visible Church and admitted to the Priviledges thereof even by the Apostles themselves So the Church of Pergamus though it did Tolerate Gross Corruptions in it yet because it kept the Faith of Christ was still called the Church of God 3. For that all the known Churches in the World acknowledge that Church for their Sister and give unto Her the Right hand of Fellowship When H. Iacob undertook Fr. Iohnson upon this Point of Separation the Position he laid down was this That the Churches of England are the True Churches of God Which he proved by this Argument Whatsoever is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation that is sufficient to make a Company of Men so gathered together to be a True Church But the whole Doctrine as it is Publickly Professed and Practised by Law in England is sufficient to make a particular Man a true Christian and in state of Salvation and our Publick Assemblies are therein gathered together Therefore it is sufficient to make the Publick Assemblies True Churches And in the Defence of this Argument against the Reasons and Exceptions of Iohnson that whole Disputation is spent And in latter times the Dispute between Ball and Can about the necessity of Separation runs into this Whether our Church be a True Church or not concerning which Ball thus delivers his Judgment True Doctrine in the main Grounds and Articles of Faith though mix't with Defects and Errors in other matters not concerning the Life and Soul of Religion and the Right Administration of Sacraments for Substance though in the manner of Dispensation some things be not so well ordered as they might and ought are notes and markes of a True and Sound Church though somewhat crased in health and soundness by Errors in Doctrine Corruptions in the Worship of God and Evils in Life and Manners The Second Supposition which the Non-conformists proceeded on was Sect. 11. 2. That the corruptions in our Church were not such as did overthrow the being and constitution of it This will best appear by the Answers they gave to the main Grounds of Separation I. That our Church was not rightly gathered at the time of our Reformation from Popery To which Giffard thus Answers The Church of England in the time of Popery was a Member of the Vniversal Church and had not the being of a Church of Christ from Rome nor took not her beginning of being a Church by Separating her self from that Romish Synagogue but having her Spirits revived and her Eyes opened by the Light of the Heavenly Word did cast forth that Tyranny of Antichrist with his Abominable Idolatry Heresies and False Worship and sought to bring all her Children unto the Right Faith and True Service of God and so is a purer and more faithful Church than before Others add That the Laws of Christian Princes have been a means to bring Men to the outward Society of the Church and so to make a visible Church Neither were sufficient means wanting in our Case for the due Conviction of Mens Minds but then they add That the Question must not be Whether the Means used were the Right Means for the Calling and Converting a People to the Faith but Whether Queen Elizabeth took a lawful course for recalling and re-uniting of Her Subjects unto those true Professors whose Fellowship they had forsaken which they Iustifie by the Examples of Jehoshaphat and Josiah Asa and Hezekiah II. That we Communicate together in a False and Idolatrous Worship of God which is polluted with Reading stinted Prayers using Popish Ceremonies c. To this they Answer 1. That it is evident by the Word That the Church hath used and might lawfully use in God's Worship and Prayer a stinted Form of Words and that not only upon Ordinary but Extraordinary Occasions which requires an Extraordinary and Special Fervency of Spirit Nay they say They are so far from thinking them unlawful that in the ordinary and general occasions of the Church they are many times more fit than those which are called Conceived Prayers 2. If Formes thus devised by Men be Lawful and Profitable What sin can it be for the Governors of the Church to Command that such Foâ—ms be used or for us that are perswaded of the Lawfulness of them to use them unless they will say That therefore it is unlawful for us to Hear the Word Receive the Sacraments Believe the Trinity and all other Articles of Faith because we are Commanded by the Magistrates so to do Whereas indeed we ought the rather to do good things that are agreeable unto the Word when we know them also to be commanded by the Magistrate 3. It is true the Non-conformists say The Liturgy is in great part picked and culled out of the Mass Book but it followeth not thence that either it is or was esteemed by them a devised or false Worship for many things contained in the Mass-Book it self are good and holy A Pearl may be found upon a Dunghil we cannot more credit the Man of Sin than to say That every thing in the Mass-Book is Devillish and Antichristian for then it would be Antichristian to Pray unto God in the Mediation of Jesus Christ to read the Scriptures to profess many Fundamental Truths necessary to Salvation Our Service might be Picked and culled out of the Mass-Book and yet be free from all fault and tincture from all shew and apperance of Evil though the Mass-Book it self was fraught with all manner of Abominations But if it be wholly taken out of the Mass-Book how comes it to have those things which are so directly contrary to the Mass that both cannot possibly stand together Yea so many points saith
Bâ—ll are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery that it is not possible Popery should stand if they take place And saith he it is more proper to say the Mass was added to our Common Prayer than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World 4. As to the Fasts and Feasts and Ceremonies retained they Answer That what was Antichristian in them was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome which being taken away by the Reformation the things themselves are not Antichristian As namely saith Giffard the Remission of Sins and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross and such like things which the Papacy is full of but rejected by us III. That our Ministery was Antichristian To this they Answer 1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture not by his unlawful outward Calling or Office that he should exercise in the Church but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp to give Laws to Mens Consciences and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God Which two Marks of Antichrist as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised were faulty and unwarrantable by the Word yet you in your own Conscience know that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience neither is any thing among us urged to be done upon pain of Damnation but only the Word and Law of God 2. That the Office which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office which the Law alloweth is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently so by our Laws he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do and forbidden to Teach any thing as required of necessity to Salvation but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture yea it Commandeth him with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines that are contrary to Gods VVord Doth the VVord Authorise him to Administer the Sacraments So doth our Law Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach but also oversee and look to the Peoples Conversation Exhorting Admonishing Reproving Comforting them as well privately as publickly So doth our Law Lastly Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ our Law doth also command the same So that although many to whom the execution of these things appertain do grievously fail in the practice thereof yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister is the same in substance with that which the VVord layeth upon him Tell us not then That the same Name is given to our Office as to the Popish Sacrificers Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists And Shall the Holy Office and Calling which is so agreeable to the VVord be misliked because it is called a Priesthood considering that though it agree in Name yet it differeth in Nature and Suâ—stance as much from the Romish Priesthood as Light doth from Darkness IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church To which they Answer 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ which concern the Discipline of his Church and the outward calling of his Ministers is no such sin as can make either the Ministers or Governors of our Church Antichrist or our Church an Antichristian and False Church And Mr. H. adds That no one place of Scripture can be found wherein he is called an Antichrist or Antichristian who holding the Truth of Doctrine and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental as we do doth swerve either in Iudgment or Practice from that Rule which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture whose Doctrine is sound If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation through no other door than Christ How dare you that say you are Christ's refuse to be guided by them If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock How can you deny them to be True Churches 2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord and Administration of Sacraments as well as the Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor which say they by Law ought to be in all our Assemblies and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ which is most substantial do want the other and so exercise it not rightly that is to say not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed And farther they add That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table all such as are Vncatâ—chised and out of Charity or any otherwise publick offenders as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion and in that which is after Confirmation 3. That although it were granted That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign The Church of Corinth was a True Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they Condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline which we want be to the Beauty and Well-being or preservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a True Church may be without them
4. That it doth not belong to private persons to set up the Discipline of the Church against the Will and Consent of the Christian Magistrate and Governors of the Church Nay they declare that in so doing they should highly offend God Giffard saith That the Fetters and Chains can no faster bind the hands and feet of Brownists then the hands of private Men are bound with the bands of Conscience and the Fear of God from presuming to take upon them Publick Authority And if all the Brownists in the Land should come together and choose a Minister and Ordain him it would make him no more a Minister before God then if all the Apprentices in London taking upon them to choose a Lord Mayor and Minister an Oath unto him should make him a Lord Mayor But of this more afterwards V. That the Ministers of our Church stand under as they speak an Antichristian Hierarchy To which they Answer First They deny that our Bishops can be called Antichristian since they do and by the Laws of the Land ought to hold and teach all Doctrines that are Fundamental yea some of them have Learnedly and Soundly maintained the Truth against Hereticks that have gainsay'd it some have not only by their Doctrine and Ministry Converted many to the Truth but have suffered Persecution for the Gospel Secondly Suppose it were an Antichristian Yoke which they deny yet this doth not destroy the being of a True Church or Miâ—istry under it Since both the Jewish and Christian Churches have frequently born such a Yoke and yet have been the True Churches of God still Thirdly That there is nothing unlawful or Antichristian in the Office of Bishops if they consider them as the Kings Visitors and Commissioners to see that the Pastors do their Duties And that this cannot destroy the nature of a Visible Church to cast many particular Churches under one Provincial or Diocesan Government Yea Mr. Bradshaw undertakes to prove this not only lawful but expedient to that degree that he thinks the Magistrate cannot well discharge his Duty as to the Oversight and Government of the Churches within his Dominions without it as is implyed in the seven Quaeries he propounds to Fr. Iohnson about it But supposing them to be Pastors of the Churches under them this saith he doth not overthrow the Office of Pastors to particular Congregations so long as under them they perform the main and substantial Duties of True Pastors which all the Ministers of our Church-Assemblies do and by the Laws cought to do These Particulars I have laid together with all possible brevity and clearness from the Authors of best reputation on both sides that we might have a distinct view of the State of the Controversie about Separation between the Old Non-conformists and the Separatists of that time Sect. 12. But before we come to our present Times we must consider the Alteration that was made in the State of this Controversie by those who were called Independents and pretended to come off from the Principles of Brownism or rigid Separation And here I shall give an Account of the Progress of the Course of Separation or the Steps by which it was carried on and how it came at last to settle in the Congregational Way and what the True State of the Difference was between the Assembly of Divines and the Dissenting Brethren and how far the Reasons then used will hold against the present Separation When those who were called Brownists for the fâ—eer Exercise of their new Church way withdrew into the Low-Countreys they immediately fell into strange Factions and Divisions among themselves A. D. 1582. Robert Brown accompanied with Harrison a School-Master and about 50 or 60 Persons went over to Middleburgh and there they chose Harrison Pastor and Brown Teacher They had not been there Three Months but upon the falling out between Brown and Harriâ—on Brown forsakes them and returns for England and Subscribes promising to the Archbishop To live Obediently to his Commands Concerning whom Harrison Writes to a Friend in London in these words Indeed the Lord hath made a breach among us for our sins which hath made us unworthy to bear his great and worthy Cause Mr. Brown hath cast us off and that with open manifest and notable Treacheries and if I should declare them you could not believe me Only this I testifie unto you that I am well able to prove That Cain dealt not so ill with his Brother Abel as he hath dealt with me Some of the words of Browns Subscription were these I do humbly submit my self to be at my Lord of Canterbury's Commandment whose Authority under Her Majesty I wâ—ll never resist or deprave by the Grace of God c. But being a Man of a Restless and Factious Temper no Promises or Subscriptions could keep him within due bounds as one who lived at that time hath fully discovered For although he promised to frequent our Churches and to come to Prayers and Sacraments yet living School-Master at S. Olaves in Southwark for two years in all that time he never did it and when he was like to have been question'd for it he withdrew into another Parish Sometimes he would go to hear Sermons but that he accounted no act of Communion and declared to his Friends That he thought it not unlawful to hear our Sermons and therefore perswaded his Followers in London so to do Notwithstanding this he Preached in Private Meetings and that in the time of Publick Assemblies when he thought fit Which this Author though a Non-conformist and Friend of T. Cs calls a Cursed Conventicle who sets forth at large his Strange Iuglings and Iesuitical Aequivocations in his Subscription By the Bishops Authority he said he meant only his Civil Authority by declaring the Church of England to be the Church of God he understood the Church of his own setting up by frequenting our Assemblies according to Law he meant the Law of God and not of the Land he declared his Child was Baptized according to Law but then told his Followers it was done without his Consent Mr. Cotton of New England hath this passage concerning Brown The first Inventor of that way which is called Brownism from whom the Sect took its Name fell back from his own way to take a Parsonage called Iâ—ourcâ— God so in a strange yet wise Providence ordering it that he who had utterly renounced all the Churches in England as no Church should afterwards accept of one Parish Church among them and it called A Church But upon the Dissention at Middleborough between Brown and Harrison that Congregation soon broke to pieces Ainsworth cannot deny the early Dissentions between Brown and Harrison Brown and Barrow Barrow and Fr. Iohnson but he reckons up all the differences in Scripture from Cain and Abel downwards to justifie theirs notwithstanding as Dr. O. well observes We are to distinguish
and the necessity of Christ ' s Flock and Disciples must necessarily if truly followed lead on to and inforce a Separation Notwithstanding all this Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches but then he saith There is no Church Communion in Hearing but only in giving the Seals Mr. Williams urgeth That there is Communion in Doctrine and Fellowship of the Gospel Upon which Mr. Cotton grants That though a Man may joyn in Hearing and Prayer before and after Sermon yet not as in a Church-state Yet after all he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches But if they remain true Churches it appears from the former Discourse they can never justifie Separation from them upon the Principles of either Party So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate as to some of their Principles then the old rigid Separatists yet they do not consider that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable The Dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration to avoid the imputation of Brownism deliver this as their Judgment concerning our Parochial Churches And for our own Congregations viz. of England we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World that all that Conscience of the Defilements we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein did never work in us any other thought much less opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the True Churches and Body of Christ and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery much less did it ever enter into our hearts to Iudge them Antichristian we saw and cannot but see that by the same reason the Churches abroad in Scotland Holland c. though more Reformed yet for their Mixture must be in like manner Iudged no Churches also which to imagine or conceive is and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts Yea we have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually overspread with Defilements or in the greatest danger thereof and when our selves had least yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren but then the difficulty returns with greater force How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles all the Dispute had been about the truth or falshood of them but their truth being supposed the necessity of Separation followed whereas now upon altering the State of the Controversie by the Independents though their Principles seem more Moderate yet their Practice is more Unreasonable It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day to justifie the Separation That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches and that therein they differ from the old Separatists It is true in that Opinion they do but in Separation they agree which is the more unjustifiable in them since they yield so much to our Churches And yet herein whatever they preâ—end they do not exceed their Independent Brethren whose Separation themselves Condemned But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren and thought it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism because 1. They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government Which they say is inconsistent with the Civil Peace as may be seen say they in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there 2. They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches as the Separatists did and think such a Confinement Unlawful 3. They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members as the Separatists did Whereby say they they confound the Visible and Invisible Church and make the same essential form of both 4. They renounce the Ordination received in our Church but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry is by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant with such a Man as their Pastor For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church after the New Model at Rotterdam Ward was chosen Pastor and Bridges Teacher but they both Renounced their Ordination in England and some say They ordained one another others That they had no other Ordination than what the Congregation gave them Sect. 13. And now new Congregations began to be set up in Holland upon these Principles but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former Simpson renouncing his Ordination was admitted a private member of the Church at Rotterdam but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members as to the exercise of Prophecying and so he and those who joyned with him complaining of the Mischief of Impositions were ready for a Separation if that restraint were not speedily removed Mr. Bridge yields to the thing but not as to the time viz. On the Lords Day after Sermon this gives no satisfaction for they must have their will in every thing or else they will never cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions And so Mr. Simpson and his Party set up a New Church of their own Which I. Goodwin doth not deny for Mr. Simpson saith he upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor might seek and make a departure from it But were these Churches quiet after this Separation made So far from it that the contentions and slanders were no less grievous saith Baylie than those of Amsterdam betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons followers But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness No but in stead of that they were so full of Bitterness Reproaches and hard Censures that Mr. Brâ—dge often declared If he had known at first what he met with afterwards he would never have come amongst them nor being amongst them have given them such scope and liberty as he had It seems at last he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions and the mischief of a Separating dividing humor But the People having the Power in their hands were resolved to shew that they held it not in vain for Mr. Ward had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregation by Preaching the same Sermons there which he had Preached before at Norwich this and some other frivolous things were thought Intolerable Impositions and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery This being a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren which occasion'd a
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
of Separation is not to be measured by Civil Acts of State but by the Word of God Fifthly To leave all Ordinary Communion in any Church with dislike when Opposition or Offence offers it self is to Separate from such a Church in the Scripture Sense Sixthly A total difference from Churches is not necessary to make a total Separation for the most rigid Separatists hold the same rule of Worship and Government with our Brethren and under this pretence Novatians Donatists all that ever were thought to Separate might shelter themselves Seventhly If they may occasionally exercise these Acts of Communion with us once a second or third time without sin we know no reason why it may not be ordinary without sin and then Separation and Church-Gathering would have been needless To Separate from those Churches ordinarily and visibly with whom occasionally you may joyn without sin seemeth to be a most Unjust Separation To the Second Reason The Dissenting Brethren gave these Answers 1. That it was founded upon this supposition That nothing is to be tolerated which is unlawful in the Iudgment of those who are to Tolerate Which the Divines of the Assembly denied and said It was upon the supposition of the unlawfulness to tolerate gathering of Churches out of true Churches which they do not once endeavor to prove lawful 2. That if after all endeavors Mens Consciences are unsatisfied as to Communion with a Church they have no Obligation lying upon them to continue in that Communion or on the Churches to withold them from removing to purer Churches or if there be none such to gather into Churches To which the Divines of the Assembly Replied I. That this opened a Gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due II. This Liberty was denied by the Churches of new-New-England and they have as just ground to deny it as they To the third Reason they Answered First That the abuse of the word Schism hath done much hurt in the Churches that the signification of it was not yet agreed upon by the State nor debated by the Assembly To which the others Reply That if the word Schism had been left out the Reason would have remained strong viz. That this would give countenance to Perpetual Division in the Church still drawing away Churches from under the Rule And to give countenance to an unjust and causless Separation from Lawful Church Communion is not far from giving countenance to a Schism especially when the grounds upon which this Separation is desired are such upon which all other possible scruples which erring Consciences may in any other case be subject unto may claim the priviledge of a like Indulgence and so this Toleration being the first shall indeed but lay the foundation and open the Gap whereat as many Divisions in the Church as there may be Scruples in the Minds of Men shall upon the self-same Equity be let in Secondly This will give Countenance only to Godly Peoples joyning in other Congregations for their greater Edification who cannot otherwise without sin enjoy all the Ordinances of Christ yet so as not condemning those Churches they joyn not with as false but still preserving all Christian Communion with the Saints as Members of the Body of Christ of the Church Catholick and joyn also with them in all duties of Worship which belong to particular Churches so far as they are able and if this be called Schism or Countenance of Schism it is more then we have yet learned from Scriptures or any approved Authors To this the Divines of the Assembly replyed 1. This desired forbearance is a perpetual Division in the Church and a perpetual drawing away from the Churches under the Rule For upon the same pretence those who scruple Infant-Baptism may withdraw from their Churches and so Separate into another Congregation and so in that some practice may be scrupled and they Separate again Are these Divisions and Sub-Divisions say they as lawful as they may be infinite or Must we give that respect to the Errors of Mens Consciences as to satisfie their Scruples by allowance of this liberty to them And Doth it not plainly signifie that Errors of Conscience is a protection against Schism 2. The not condemning of our Churches as false doth little extenuate the Separation for divers of the Brownists who have totally separated in former times have not condemned these Churches as false though they do not pronounce an Affirmative Judgment against us yet the very Separating is a tacit and practical condemning of our Churches if not as false yet as impure eousque as that in such Administrations they cannot be by them as Members Communicated with without sin And when they speak of Communion with us as Members of the Church Catholick it is as full a declining of Communion with us as Churches as if we were false Churches 3. We do not think differences in Judgment in this or that Point to be Schism or that every inconformity unto every thing used or enjoyned is Schism so that Communion be preserved or that Separation from Idolatrous Communion or Worship ex se unlawful is Schism but to joyn in Separate Congregations of another Communion which succession of our Members is a manifest rupture of our Societies into others and is therefore a Schism in the Body and if the Apostle do call those Divisions of the Church wherein Christians did not Separate into divers formed Congregations of several Communion in the Sacrament of the Lords Supper Schismes much more may such Separation as this desired be so called 4. Scruple of Conscience is no cause of Separating nor doth it take off causeless separation from being Schism which may arise from Errors of Conscience as well as carnal and corrupt reasons therefore we conceive the causes of Separation must be shewn to be such exnaturâ rei will bear it out and therefore we say that the granting the liberty desired will give countenance to Schism 5. We cannot but take it for granted upon evidence of Reason and Experience of all Ages that this Separation will be the Mother and Nurse of Contentions Strifes Envyings Confusions and so draw with it that breach of Love which may endanger the heightning of it into formal Schism even in the sence of our Brethen 6. What is it that approved Authors do call Schism but the breaking off Members from their Churches which are lawfully constituted Churches and from Communion in Ordinances c. without just and sufficient cause ex natura rei to justifie such secession and to joyn in other Congregations of Separate Communion either because of personal failings in the Officers or Members of the Congregation from which they separate or because of causeless Scruple of their own Conscience which hath been called setting up altare contra altare from which they quote St. Augustin and Camenon Thus I have faithfully laid down the State of this Controversie about Separation as it hath been managed in former times among
II. Of the Nature of the Present Separation Sect. 1. HAving made it my business in the foregoing Discourse to shew How far the present Dissenters are gone off from the Principles of the old Non-conformists I come to consider What those Principles are which they now proceed upon And those are of Two sorts First Of such as hold partial and occasional Communion with our Churches to be lawful but not total and constant i. e. they judge it lawful at some times to be present in some part of our Worship and upon particular occasions to partake of some acts of Communion with us but yet they apprehend greater purity and edification in separate Congregations and when they are to choose they think themselves bound to choose these although at certain seasons they may think it lawful to submit to occasional Communion with our Church as it is now established Secondly Of such as hold any Communion with our Church to be unlawful because they believe the Terms of its Communion unlawful for which they instance in the constant use of the Liturgy the Aereal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the observation of Holy-dayes renouncing other Assemblies want of Discipline in our Churches and depriving the People of their Right in choosing their own Pastors To proceed with all possible clearness in this matter we must consider these Three things 1. What things are to be taken for granted by the several parties with respect to our Church 2. Wherein they differ among themselves about the nature and degrees of Separation from it 3. What the true State of the present Controversie about Separation is I. In General they cannot deny these three things 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church 2. That there is no other reason of Separation because of the Terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still allowed by the Reformed Churches abroad 1. That there is no Reason of Separation because of the Doctrine of our Church This was confessed by the Brownists and most rigid Separatists as is proved already and our present Adversaries agree herein Dr. Owen saith We agree with our Brethren in the Faith of the Gospel and we are firmly united with the main Body of Protestants in this Nation in Confession of the same Faith And again The Parties at difference do agree in all Substantial parts of Religion and in a Common Interest as unto the preservation and defence of the Protestant Religion Mr. Baxter saith That they agree with us in the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from the form of Government and imposed abuses And more fully elsewhere Is not the Non conformists Doctrine the same with that of the Church of England when they subscribe to it and offer so to do The Independents as well as Presbyterians offer to subscribe to the Doctrine of the 39 Articles as distinct from Prelacy and Ceremony We agree with them in the Doctrine of Faith and the Substance of God's Worship saith the Author of the last Answer And again We are one with the Church of England in all the necessary points of Faith and Christian Practice We are one with the Church of England as to the Substance and all necessary parts of God's Worship And even Mr. A. after many trifling cavils acknowledges That the Dissenters generally agree with that Book which is commonly called the 39 Articles which was compiled above a Hundred years ago and this Book some Men call the Church of England I know not who those Men are nor by what Figure they speak who call a Book a Church but this we all say That the Doctrine of the Church of England is contained therein and whatever the opinions of private persons may be this is the Standard by which the Sense of our Church is to be taken And that no objection ought to be made against Communion with our Church upon account of the Doctrine of it but what reaches to such Articles as are owned and received by this Church 2. That there are in effect no new termes of Communion with this Church but the same which our first Reformers owned and suffered Martyâ—dom for in Q. Maries days Not but that some alterations have been made since but not such as do in the Judgment of our Brethren make the terms of Communion harder than before Mr. Baxter grants that the terms of Lay Communion are rather made easier by such Alterations even since the additional Conformity with respect to the late Troubles The same Reasons then which would now make the terms of our Communion unlawful must have held against Cranmer Ridley c. who laid down their Lives for the Reformation of this Church And this the old Non-conformists thought a considerable Argument against Separating from the Communion of our Church because it reflected much on the honor of our Martyrs who not only lived and died in the Communion of this Church and in the practice of those things which some are now most offended at but were themselves the great Instruments in setling the Terms of our Communion 3. That Communion with our Church hath been still owned by the Protestant and Reformed Churches abroad Which they have not only manifested by receiving the Apology and Articles of our Church into the Harmony of Confessions but by the Testimony and Approbation which hath been given to it by the most Esteemed and Learned Writers of those Churches and by the discountenance which they have still given to Separation from the Communion of it This Argument was often objected against the Separatists by the Non-conformists and Ainsworth attempts to Answer it no less than Four times in one Book but the best Answer he gives is That if it prove any thing it proves more than they would have For saith he the Reformed Churches have discerned the National Church of England to be a true Church they have discerned the Diocesan Bishops of England as well as the Parish-Priests to be true Ministers and rejoyce as well for their Sees as for your Parishes having joyned these all alike in theâ—r Harmony As to the good opinion of the Reformed Church and Protestant Divines abroad concerning the Constitution and Orders of our Church so much hath been proved already by Dr. Durel and so little or nothing hath been said to disprove his Evidence that this ought to be taken as a thing granted but if occasion be given both he and oâ—hers are able to produce much more from the Testimony of foreign Divines in Justification of the Communion of our Church against all pretences of Separation from it Sect. 2. We now come to the several Hypotheses and Principles of Separation which are at this day among the Dissenters from our Church Some do seem to allow Separate Congregations only in such places where the Churches are not
any Motive but the pleasing God and the Churches good What Muttering and Censuring would then be among them And Woe to those few Teachers that make up their Designs by cherishing these Distempers One would think that their warning had been fair but Si nati sint ad bis perdendam Angliam The Lord have Mercy upon us 2. When the matter is throughly examined the difference between the Teachers and the old Separatists will be found not near so great as is pretended For what matter is it as to the nature of Separation whether the terms of our Communion be called Idolatrous or Vnlawful whether the Ministery of our Church be called a False Ministery or Insufficient Scandalous Vsurpers and Persecutors whether our Hierarchy be called Antichristian or Repugnant to the Institution of Christ. Now these are the very same Arguments which the old Separatists used only they are disguised under another appearance and put into a more fashionable dress As will be manifest by Particulars 1. As to the People 2. As to the Ministry of our Church Sect. 4. I. Our present Dissenters who disown the old Separation yet make the terms of Lay-Communion for Persons as Members of our Church to be unlawful For Mr. B. in his late Plea for Peace hath a whole Chapter of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church And in the same Book he saith It is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the Transient Sign of the Cross or for want of Godfathers c. or to deny the Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who Separate in these things are not For saith Mr. B. When the Laity cannot have their Children Baptized without such use of the Transient Dedicating Image of the Cross and such use of Entitling and Covenanting Godfathers which they take to be no small sin Is it Separation to joyn with Pastors that will otherwise Baptize them We see the Church is Schismatical in requiring these things and Mr. B. thinks the People bound to joyn with other Pastors that will not use them And what is this but formal Separation But for all this Mr. B. may hold that total renouncing of Communion with our Church may be Schismatical for he saith it may be Schism to Separate from a Church that hath some Schismatical Principles Practises and Persons if those be not such and so great as to necessitate our departure from them But here Mr. B. saith There is a necessity of departure and to joyn with other Pastors and therefore he must hold a formal Separation And as to the renouncing total Communion with our Church that was never done by the greatest Separatists For they all held Communion in Faith with it And even Brown the Head of the old Separatists thought it lawful to joyn with our Church in some Acts of Worship and others thought they might joyn in Acts of private and Christian Communion but not in Acts of Church Communion others thought it lawful to joyn in hearing Sermons and Pulpit Prayers though not in others and yet were charged with Separation by the old Non-conformists And if our present Dissenters do hold the terms of Communion with our Church to be unlawful they must hold a necessity of Separation or that persons may be good Christians and yet be no Members of any Church For if it be unlawful to communicate as Members of our Church they must either not communicate at all as Members of any Church or as Members of a distinct and Separate Church from ours If they declare themselves Members of another Church they own as plain a Separation as the old Separatists ever did if they do not and yet hold it unlawful to Communicate with our Churches as Members then they are Members of no Church at all So that if they hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they must either be Separatists or no good Christians upon their own Principles For saith the Author of the Letter out of the Country this were to exchange visible Christianity for visible at least Negative Paganism Now that our present dissenters do hold the terms of our Communion unlawful they are more forward to declare than I could have imagined In my Sermon I mentioned some passages wherein it seemed clear to me that some considerable persons among them did allow Lay communion with our Church to be lawful But they have taken a great deal of pains to undeceive me some declaring in express terms That they look on the terms of our Communion as unlawful and that there is a necessity of Separation from our Parochial Churches and of joyning to other Congregations And others saying That such a Concession viz. That they hold Communion with our Churches to be lawful taken in their own sense will neither do them any harm nor us any service For as Mr. A. hath summed up the sense of these Men. 1. Many of them declare so and many declare otherwise And it 's as good an Argument to prove Communion unlawful because many declare against it as 't is to prove it lawful because many declare for it 2. They dâ—clare Communion lawful but. Dâ— they declare Total Communion lawful The same Persons will tell us that both these Propositions are â—â—ue Communion is lawful and Communion is unlawful Communion in some parts of Worship is so in others not And 3. Thâ—y will further tell us That Communion with some Parish chuâ—ches is lawful with others unlawful that there are not the same Doctrines Preached the same Ceremonies urged the same rigid terms of Communion in all Churches exacted And lastly that occasional Communion is or may be lawful where a stated and fixed Communion is not so and they give this Reason for their Iudgment and practice because to hold Communion with one Church or sort of Christians exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable Churches and that there are some things tolerable which are not eligible wherein they can bear with much for Peace sake but chuse rather to sit down ordinarily with Purer Administrations Here we have the Principles of the New Separation laid together 1. Many of them hold Communion with our Church unlawful and that must be understood of any kind of Communion for the Second sort from whom they are distinguishâ—d hold total Communion unlawful and therefore this first sort must hold Communion in any parts of Worship unlawful And so they exceed the more moderate Separatists of Robinson's and the new-New-England way and must fall into the way of the most rigid Separatists 2. Those that do hold Communion lawful do it with so many restrictions and limitations that in practice it amounts to little more than the other For First It is only with some Churches and those it seems must be such as do not hold to our Constitution for he
saith The same Ceremonies are not urged in all Churches nor the same rigid terms of Communion exacted i. e. If any Churches among us comply with them they can Communicate with them i. e. if they break their own Rules they can joyn with them Is not this an admirable way of Communicating with our Churches But if our Churches hold to their Rule and observe the Orders prescribed then it seems they renounce all Communion with them as unlawful And what is this but to deny Communion with the Church of England For unless Parochial Churches depart from the terms of Communion required by it they will have no Communion with them And Mr. A. delivers this not only as his own Opinion but as the Sense of the Party That if most of the Preachers in the Separate Meetings were Asked their Iudgments about the Lawfulness of Ioyning with the Parochial Churches in all the parts of Worship or in any exclusive to their joyning with other Assemblies where the Gospel Rule is more strictly observed they would flatly deny it And he goes yet further when he saith That the People cannot lawfully Separate from those Churches whereof they are regularly Members and from those Pastors under whose Ministerial Conduct their own Free Election hath placed them to joyn ordinarily and constantly with any other particular Churches This is owning a plain and downright Separation in as clear and distinct words as ever Iohnson or Ainsworth did For 1. He makes it to be their general sense That it is unlawful to communicate with our Churches ordinarily and constantly or to be Members of our Churches Which is the same thing which they said 2. He ownes the setting up new and distinct Churches in plain opposition to ours For he owns other Pastors other People and a new Relation between these by the choice of the one and the conduct of the other This is no mincing the matter as Mr. B. often doth but he speaks it boldly and with great assurance and ushers it in with I have confidence contrary to his I think no Man doubts of his Confidence that ever looked into his Book but in this matter he is so brisk that he saith He doth not question that he should carry it by the Poll. And is withall so indiscreet as on this occasion to Triumph in the Poll of Non-conformists at Guildhall as though all who gave their Votes there had owned these Principles of Separation for which many of those Gentlemen will give him little thanks and is a very unseasonable boasting of their Numbers II. All the difference then that seems to be left is about the lawfulness of that which they call Occasional Communion As to which these things are to be observed 1. That it is practised by very few especially if Mr. A ' s. Poll be allowed 2. That it signifies little as to this matter if Men be fixed Members of other Churches For the denomination of their Communion is to be taken from thence and not from an Occasional and accidental Presence For Communion with a Church is joyning with a Church as a Member of that Church And it is not occasional Presence at some parts of Worship which makes a Man a Member of a Church I suppose there are many occasionally present at Mr. A's or Mr. B's Meetings who renounce all Communion with them A Protestant may be occasionally present at some parts of Worship in the Roman Church and that frequently too to hear Sermons c. but Doth this make a Man to have Communion with the Church of Rome Most of our Gentlemen who have Travelled abroad have been thus occasionally present in some parts of the Romish Worship at Rome and Paris but they would think themselves hardly dealt with to be charged to have had Communion with the Church of Rome And if they be urged with it they will plead still They were of the Protestant Communion and the Reason they will give is because they did not joyn with them in all parts of their Worship not in adoration of the Host or Worship of Images and therefore they remained still of the Protestant Communion although they were occasionally present at some parts of the Popish Service And Is it not the same case here If Men only afford an occasional Presence at some parts of our Worship How comes this to make them more to have Communion with our Church than the like presence would make them to have Communion with the Roman Church In the beginning of Q Elizabeth's Reign most of the Papists in England did offer an Occasional Presence at our Churches in some parts of our Worship and yet all that time were Members of the Roman Church because they kept their Priests and had Mass in private and declared That though they looked on our Service as tolerable yet they thought the Roman more eligible and so having Full Communion with that and being only occasionally present at our Service they thought themselves good Catholicks So if Men do look on the Separate Meetings as more eligible and a better way of Worship with which they constantly joyn and alwayes choose to do it their occasional Presence at our Assemblies doth not make them Members of our Churches but they still remain Members of the Separate Congregations if they maintain full and constant Communion with them And none of the formed Separate Churches will look on any one as having Communion with them for being occasionally present at some parts of their Worship for they say That Heathens and Indians may have such occasional Communion with them but they require from Persons that are admitted to Communion with their Churches a Submission to all the Rules and Orders among them The new-New-England Churches will suffer no Man to continue a Member of their Communion that scruples Infant Baptism or refuses to be present at the Administration of it although he be never so willing to be occasionally present at all other parts of Worship with them For not only openly condemning and opposing Infant-Baptism but going about secretly to seduce others from the approbation or use thereof or purposely departing the Congregation at the Administration of that Ordinance is liable by their Laws to the Sentence of Banishment And they have found it so necessary to twist the Civil and Ecclesiastical Interests together that as none but Church-Members are Free-men among them so none that are banished can retain their Church-Membership From all this it appears that this new Notion of Occasional Communion in some parts of Worship exclusively to others is disowned by all sorts of Churches and is a late fancy taken up on purpose to avoid the charge of Separation Sect. 5. But we here meet with an excellent Reason for the lawfulness of this Occasional Communion with our Churches viz. because to hold Communion with one Church exclusively to all others is contrary to their true Catholick Principles which teach them to hold Communion though not equally with all tolerable
thing of such great importance and Separation so mischievous as he hath represented it that the Peoples apprehension of a less defective way of Worship shall be sufficient ground for them to break a Church in pieces and to run into wayes of Separation Hath not Mr. Baxter represented and no Man better the Ignorance Injudiciousness Pride Conceitedness and Vnpeaceabless of the ordinary sort of zealous Professors of Religion And after all this must they upon a conceit of Purer Administrations and Less Defective Wayes of Worship be at liberty to rend and tear a Church into pieces and run from one Separate Congregation to another till they have run themselves out of breath and left the best parts of their Religion behind them How fully hath Mr. B. set forth the Vngovernable and Factious Humor of this sort of People and the Pernicious consequences of complying with them and Must the Reins be laid in their Necks that they may run whither they please Because forsooth they know better what is good for their Souls than the King doth and they love their Souls better than the King doth and the King cannot bind them to hurt or Famish or endanger their Souls But Why must the King bear all the blame if Mens Souls be not provided for according to their own wishes Doth the King pretend to do any thing in this matter but according to the establish'd Laws and Orders of this Church Why did he not keep to the good old Phrase of King and Parliament And why did he not put it as it ought to have been that they know what makes better for their own Edification than the Wisdom of the whole Nation in Parliament and the Governors of this Church do and let them make what Law 's and Orders they will if the People even the rash and injudicious Professors as Mr. B. calls them do think other means of Edification better and other wayes of Worship less defective they are bound to break through all Laws and to run into Separation And How is it possible upon these terms to have any Peace or Order or any establish'd Church I do not remember that any of the old Separatists no not Barrow or Iohnson did ever lay down such loose Principles of Separation as these are The Brownists declare in their Apology That none are to Separate for faults and corruptions which may and will fall out among Men even in true constituted Churches but by due order to seek the redress thereof Where a Church is rightly constituted here is no allowance of Separation for defects and corruptions of Men although they might apprehend Smith or Iacob to be more edifying Preachers than either Iohnson or Ainsworth The ground of Separation with them was the want of a right constituted Church if that were once supposed other defects were never till now thought to be good grounds of Separation In the Platform of the Discipline of new-New-England it is said That Church-Members may not depart from the Church as they please nor without just and weighty cause Because such departure tends to the dissolution of the Body Those just Reasons are 1. If a Man cannot continue without sin 2. In case of Persecution Not one word of better means of Edification For the Independents have wisely taken care to secure their Members to their own Congregations and not suffer them to wander abroad upon such pretences lest such liberty should break them into disorder and confusion So in their Declaration at the Savoy they say That Persons joyned in Church-Fellowship ought not lightly or without just cause to withdraw themselves from the Communion of the Church whereunto they are joyned And they reckon up those which they allow for just causes 1. Where any person cannot continue in any Church without his sin and that in Three cases First Want of Ordinances Secondly Being deprived of due priviledges Thirdly Being compelled to any thing in practice not warranted by the Word 2. In case of Persecution 3. Vpon the account of conveniency of Habitation And in these Cases the Church or Officers are to be consulted and then they may peaceably depart from the Communion of the Church No allowance here made of forsaking a Church meerly for greater means of Edification And how just soever the reason were they are civilly to take leave of the Church and her Officers and to tell them why they depart And Mr. Burroughs condemns it as the direct way to bring in all kind of disorder and confusion into the Church Yet this is now the main support of the present Separation and meer necessity hath driven them to it for either they must own the Principles of the old Separatists which they are unwilling to do or find out others to serve their turn but they are such as no Man who hath any regard to the Peace and Vnity of the Church can ever think fit to maintain since they apparently tend to nothing but disorder and confusion as Mr. Burroughs truly observed But what ground is there to suppose so much greater means of Edification in the Separate Congregations since Mr. B. is pleased to give this Testimony to the Preaching in our Parish-Churches That for his part he hath seldom heard any but very good well-studied Sermons in the Parish Churches in London where he hath been but most of them are more fitted to well-bred Scholâ—rs or judicious Hearers than to such as need more Practicall Subjects and a more plain familiar easie method Is this the truth of the case indeed Then for all that I can see the King is excused from all blame in this matter unless it be a fault to provide too well for them And Is this a good ground for Separation that the Preaching is too good for the People Some Men may want Causes to defend but at this rate they can never want Arguments Yet methinks the same Men should not complain of starving and famishing Souls when the only fault is that the Meat is too good and too well dressed for them And on the other side hath not Mr. B. complained publickly of the weakness and injudiciousness of too many of the Non-conformist Preachers and that he really fears lest meer Non-Conformists have brought some into reputation as conscientious who by weak Preaching will lose the reputation of being Iudicious more than their silence lost it And again But verily the injudiciousness of too many is for a Lamentation To which he adds But the Grand Calamity is that the most injudicious are usually the most confident and self-conceited and none so commonly give way to their Ignorant Zeal to Censure Backbite and Reproach others as those that know not what they talk of Let now any Reader judge whether upon the stating of the case by Mr. B. himself their having better means of Edification can be the ground of leaving our Churches to go to Separate Congregations unless injudiciousness and self-conceited confidence
some and put in others In that case he saith If they be Men of uniried and suspected parts of fidelity of which the People are to be Judges the Princes imposition doth not make such true Pastors of the Church before or without the People consent nor doth it always bind the People to consent and to forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismaticks because they do it not Thirdly They give particular directions to the People what sort of Ministers they should own and what not Mr. B. bids the People not think that he is perswading them to make no difference but after he hath set aside the utterly insufficient and the heretical of which the People are admirable Judges he lays down this general Rule Any one whose Ministry is such as tendeth to destruction more than to edification and to do more harm than good is not to be owned And if not to be owned so then he is to be separated from and although he adviseth the People to lay aside partiality and passion yet whether they will or not they are left sole Iudges in this matter And that we may not think all this to be only a Romantick Scheme or Fiction he tells us elsewhere That they are not able to confute the People in too many places who tell them that their publick Priests are so defective in their necessary qualifications for their Office as that they hold it unlawful to own such for true Ministers and to encourage them by their presence or commit the care of their Souls to such i.e. in plain terms they are encouraged to Separation on this account which is directly contrary to the Principles of the old Non-conformists as appears at large by Mr. Ball. if saith he Can's meaning be that it is not lawful to communicate in the Worship of God with Ministers not fitly qualified disorderly called or carelesly executing their Office and Function then it is directly contrary to the word of Truth sound Reason and consent of all the Learned With much more to that purpose and even Mr. B. himself when he takes upon him as a Casuist to determine these things doth then declare his Mind 1. That a Ministers personal faults do not allow People to Separate from the Worship of God 2. Nor all Ministerial faults but only those that prove him or his Ministration utterly intolerable But now if Mr. B. may be believed the People need not be told how great a number of Cases there are among us where the Ministers are uncapable of the Ministerial Office and therefore it is no sin in them to judge him no Minister and consequently to Separate from him Hath not Mr. B. fully set forth the Pride Ignorance Censoriousness Headiness Rashness of raw and injudicious Zealots and after all this Is it fit or reasonable that the opinion of such persons be taken concerning the qualifications of their Ministers Hath not Mr. B. complained with more than ordinary resentment that they are ready to scorn and vilifie the gravest wisest Pastors And Must such Mens Judgments be taken concerning the Abilities and Competency of their Ministers Either Mr. B. hath extremely wronged them in the Characters he hath given of such People or he hath taken away all the reputation of their Judgment in such cases When they scorn and contemn the greavest wisest Pastors are they fit to Judge of Ministerial Aâ—ilities But there are graver and wiser among the People Suppose that But doth not Mr. B. say That the rawest and rashest Professors are commonly the most violent and censorious these are the bold and forward men that will Judge in spite of the rest these are the men that need not be told what numbers of uncapable Ministers there are among us And it doth not become Mr. B's Gravity or Wisdom to hearken to all the censures and malicious reports of such ignorant and heady zealots as he calls them about the unworthiness or incapacity of their Ministers Are they only the grave and wise Pastors among themselves which are scorned by such men It is possible that those may be grave and wise among us too whom they censure for incompetent men Or must the same People which are raw and injudicious ignorant and censorious proud and self-conceited when they make their Judgment of them be of a sudden turned into grave and wise men when they pass their Judgment upon the Abilities and Fitness of our Preachers This doth not look like fair and equal dealing I pray let our Ministers have a fair hearing and let the matter be well examined before the People be thus encouraged to Separate from their Ministers for their disabilities or unworthiness But suppose there be too great a number of young raw injudicious Preachers as Mr. B. saith no Man can deny that knoweth England and hath any modesty Is there no way but to your Tents O Israel Will nothing but Separation serve your Turn Is this the way to mend the matter and to make them grave and wise Doth not Mr. B. confess That they have too many such among themselves Must they Separate from them too What endless confusions do such Principles tend to But the bottom of all is this Separation must be justified one way or other and such Principles found out which may seem to do it Yet after all What is this to the present case of Separation in this City for here the Charge was laid and to this the Answer must be given or it is to no purpose Is it any reason that near half of some Parishes in London should Separate from their grave and wise Pastors such as I know some to be where this case is because in Cornwall or Yorkshire or Northumberland there are many raw and injudicious besides scandalous Priests as Mr. B. speaks We urge you particularly with the London Separation you tell us what the People say of the Insufficiency and Vnworthiness of the Clergy in other parts of England suppose it true What is all this to the business If you persist in this way we can name the Parishes to you in London where the Ministers are Men of unexceptionable Learning and Piety where the Churches are large enough to receive the People that Separate as well as those that come and yet they forsake the Churches Communion and adhere to the Separate Congregations Tell us plainly in this case Is this Separation lawful or not If it be lawful to what purpose do you make use of so many shifts and evasions as to great Prishes and insufficient and scandalous Priests in other parts of the Nation Answer to the case proposed and to the place where the Charge was laid and think not to escape by such apparent evasions and impertinencies as these If you think such a Separation unlawful then Why do you pretend to confute my Sermon which was designed purposely against it Sect. 9. But while you plead for this liberty of the Peoples
Therefore this matter of Schism cannot be ended by the Plea of Conscience judging the conditions to be sinful but by evident and convincing Proofs that they are so but till these are brought forth which never yet were or ever will be they must bear the blame of the Schism if they Separate on these accounts Thus I have faithfully represented the Principles of those who allow occasional Presence in our Churches rather than Communion with them which I have discover'd to be of that Nature as leads Men to the greatest Separation Sect. 14. There are others who deal more openly and ingenuously and so need the less pains to discover their minds and those are II. Such who do in terms assert all Acts of Communion with our Churches to be unlawful But there is a difference among these For First Some allow hearing Sermons in our Publick Assemblies and joyning in the Pulpit Prayers but not in the Liturgy or any proper Act of Church-Communion This I have shewed was the Opinion of Robinson and the new-New-England Churches and was lately owned by Mr. Ph. Nye who Wrote a Discourse about it and answered all Objections Yea he goes so far as to own the publick preaching as a great blessing to the Nation and he thinks the Dissenters and their Families are bound to frequent as they have liberty and opportunity the more publick and National Ministry But towards the end of his Treatise he confesses the generality of their People to be of another opinion which he imputes to the activity of the Iesuits among them and he was a very sagacious Man Secondly Others hold it unlawful to joyn with our Churches in any Acts of publick Worship And some are arrived to that height that one of my Answerers confesseth That they refuse to hear him because he owns many Parochial Churches to be true Churches It seems then they not only think it unlawful to hear us but to hear those who think it lawful and the next step will be to Separate from those who do not Separate from them that own many Parochial Churches to be true Churches Several Books have been published to prove it unlawful to hear our Ministers Preach and these proceed upon the old Arguments of the former Separatists as may be seen at large in a Book called Ierubbaal whose Author goes about to prove our Worship Idolatry and our Ministers Antichristian which Mr. Nye was so far from owning that he grants our Ministry to be true and lawful and utterly denies it to be Anti-christian because the Articles of our Religion to which our Ministers are to conform their Instructions are Orthodox and framed for the casting and keeping out of Popery Sect. 15. The several Principles of our Dissenters being thus laid down the State of the present Controversie as to Separation from our Communion will soon appear And any one may now discern 1. That I do not mean bare local Separation For Mr. B. puts this in the front of his Quaere's Do you think that he is a Separatist that meeteth not in the same Parish Church with you No I do assure him provided that he elsewhere joyns with our Churches as a Member of them and doth not think himself bound to prefer the Separate Meetings as having a purer way of worship and ordinarily to frequent them for more Gospel-administrations And so much may satisfie Mr. A. too who after his trifling manner talks of a bellum Parochiale as though Men were so weak to charge one another with Separation because they meet in different Parishes but as to the Gird he gives about a Bellum Episcopale I desire him only to look into the Evangelium armatum for an Answer to it 2. I do not mean by Separation any difference in Doctrine not determin'd by our Church upon which Men do not proceed to divide from the Communion of it And I wonder who ever did But Mr. B. is pleased to make another Quaere about it To this I shall Answer him in Mr. Hales his words While the Controversies in Holland about Praedestination went no farther thâ—n the Pen-combats the Schism was all that while unhatcht but assoon as one party swept an old Cloyster and by a pretty art made it a Church by putting a new Pulpit in it for the Separating party there to meet that which was before a Controversie became a formal Schism 3. By Separation I do not mean any difference in Modes of Worship allowed by the Church in whose Communion we live This is to Answer Mr. B's Quaere concerning the difference between Cathedral and Parochial Churches and publick and private administrations of Sacraments But this sticks much with Mr. A. who takes his hints from Mr. B. which he cooks and dresses after his Facetious manner that they may go off the better with the common people And a very pleasant representation he endeavors to make of the difference of the Cathedral Service from that in Countrey Parishes But what is all this to the purpose If the same Man puts on finer Clothes at London than he wears in the Countrey Is he not the same Man for all that Are not David's Psalms the same whether they be Sung or Said Or whether Sung in a Cathedral Tune or as set by a Parish Clerk That which only looks like Argument and my business is to mind nothing else possibly others may call him to an account for his unbecoming way of Writing That I say which looks like Argument is That some things are done without Rules in our Parish Churches as the universal practice of Singing Psalms in Hopkins and Sternholds Metre and therefore they may do things without Rules and yet not be guilty of Separation This proceeds upon a mistake for in the first establishment of the Liturgy upon the Reformation under Edward the VI. allowance was made for the use of the Psalms as they were to be Sung in Churches distinct from the use of them as part of the Liturgy and from thence that custom hath been so universally practised But suppose there are some Customs receiv'd without Rules suppose there are some different Customs among us What is this to the denying the lawfulness of constant Communion with our Churches To the choosing of new Pastors and sitting down as he speaks with purer Administrations All which this Man owns in his Book as their avowed Principles and Practices and yet hath the confidence to parallel their Separation from our Church with the different Modes of Worship among our selves He must have a very mean opinion of Mens understandings that thinks to deceive them in so gross a manner 4. By Separation I do not understand a meer difference as to the way of Worship which the Members of foreign Churches are here permitted to enjoy For they do not break off from the Communion of our Churches but have certain priviledges allowed them as acting under the Rules of those Churches from whence they came But what have
to be a Member of those Churches and thought it lawful to communicate some times constant communion would be a Duty But because this seems so hard to be understood I will therefore undertake to prove it by these Two Arguments First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Vnity of the Church Secondly From the particular force of that Text Philipp 3. 16. As far as you have already attained walk by the same Rule c. First From the general Obligation upon Christians to use all lawful means for preserving the Peace and Unity of the Church If it be possible saith St. Paul as much as lies in you live peaceably with all Men. Now I Ask If there be not as great an obligation at least upon Christians to preserve Peace in the Church as with all Men and they are bound to that as far as possible and as much as lies in them And is not that possible and lies in them to do which they acknowledge lawful to be done and can do at some times What admirable Arguments are there to Peace and Vnity among Christians What Divine Enforcements of them on the Consciences of Men in the Writings of Christ and his Apostles And cannot these prevail with Men to do that which they think in their Consciences they may lawfully do towards joyning in Communion with us This I am perswaded is one of the provoking Sins of the Non-conformists that they have been so backward in doing what they were convinced they might have done with a good Conscience When they were earnestly pressed to it by those in Authority they refused it and they have been more and more backward ever since till now they seem generally resolved either to break all in pieces or to persist in Separation Mr. B. indeed very honestly moved them 1663. to consider how far it was lawful or their duty to communicate with the Parish Churches in the Liturgy and Sacraments and brought many Arguments to prove it lawful and no one of the Brethren seemed to dissent but observe the Answer Mr. A. makes to this i. e. saith he They did not enter their several Protestations nor formally declare against the Reasons of their Brother like wise and wary persons they would advise upon them And so they have been advising and considering ever since till with great Wisdom and Wariness they are dropt into Separation before they were aware of it and the meer necessity of defending their own practices makes them espouse these Principles Such another Meeting Mr. B. saith they had after the Plague and Fire at which they agreed That Communion with our Church was in it self lawful and good Here Mr. A. charges me for being tardy and wronging the Relator by leaving out the most considerable words of the sentence viz. When it would not do more harm than good And upon this he expatiates about the wayes when it may do more harm than good Whereas if the Reader please to examine the place he will find I did consider the force of those words when I put it that they resolved it to be lawful in it self although some circumstances might hinder their present doing it For they declared That it was in it self lawful and meet but the circumstances of that time did make them think it might do more harm than good and therefore it is said They delaid for a fitter opportunity which makes it clear they were then resolved upon the lawfulness of the thing But that opportunity hath never hapned since and so they are now come to plead against the practice of it as Mr. A. plainly doth by such reasons as these Communion with our Churches will then do more harm than good 1. When such Communion shall perswade the Parish Churches that their frame is eligible and not only tolerable As though Separation were more eligible than a Communion that is lawful and tolerable and Schism were not more intolerable than Communion with a tolerable Church What will not Men say in defence of their own practice Was ever Schism made so light a matter of And the Peace and Vnity of Christians valued at so low a rate that for the prevention of the one and the preservation of the other a thing that is lawful may not be done if there be any danger that what is only tolerable should be mistaken for more eligible As if all the Mischiefs of Schism and Division in the Church were not fit to be put in the ballance against such a horrible and monstrous inconvenience Methinks it were better sometimes to be wise and considerate than always thus subtil and witty against the common sence and reason of Mankind 2. When others shall thereby be thought obliged to separate from purer Churches i. e. be drawn off from their Separation 3. When it will harden the Papists As though their Divisions did not do it ten thousand times more 4. When it shall notably prejudice the Christian Religion in general Yes no doubt the Cure of Divisions would do so By these particulars it appears that he thinks them not obliged to do what lawfully they can do Yet at last he saith he tells us as much is done as their Consciences will permit them Say you so Is it indeed come to this Will none of your Consciences now permit you either to come to the Liturgy or to make use of any parts of it in your own Meetings How often hath Mr. B. told the World That you stuck not at Set-Forms nor at the Vse of the Liturgy provided some exceptionable passages were alter'd in it Did not Mr. B. declare at his Meeting publickly in a Writing on purpose That they did not meet under any colour or pretence of any Religious Exercise in other manner than according to the Liturgy and Practice of the Church of England and were he able he would accordingly Read himself Is this observed in any one Meeting in London or through England Then certainly there are some who do not what they think they lawfully may do towards Communion with us And Mr. B. saith in the beginning of his late Plea That they never made one Motion for Presbytery or against Liturgies and these words are spoken in the Name of the whole Party called Presbyterians And since that Mr. B. saith They did come to an Agreement wherein the constant Vse of the Liturgy with some Alterations was required And are we now told That all that can lawfully be done is done Mr. B. indeed acts agreeably to his Principles in coming to our Liturgy but Where are all the rest And Which of them Reads what they think lawful at their own Assemblies Do they not hereby discover that they are more afraid of losing their People who force them to comply with their humors than careful to do what they judge lawful towards Communion with our Church Sect. 17. But whence comes it to pass that any who think
to set up for a Critick upon the credit of it It is pitty therefore it should pass without some consideration But I pass by the Childish triflings about 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 a Canon viz. that is not taken in a Military notion because great Guns were not then invented that it is an Ecclesiastical Canon mounted upon a platform of Moderation which are things fit only for Boys in the Schools unless perhaps they might have been designed for an Artillery-Sermon on this Text but however methinks they come not in very sutably in a weighty and serious debate I come therefore to examine the New-Light that is given to this Controverted Text. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he observes from Grotius is left out in one MS it may be the Alexandrian but What is one MS. to the general consent of Greek Copies not only the Modern but those which St. Chrysostom Theodoret Photius Oecumenius and Theophylact had who all keep it in But suppose it be left out the sence is the very same to my purpose No saith he 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 To walk by the same must be referred to the antecedent 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 And what then Then saith he the sense is What we have attained let us walk up to the same Which comes to no more than this unto whatsoever measure or degree of knowledge we have reached let us walk sutably to it But the Apostle doth not here speak of the improvement of knowledge but of the union and conjuction of Christians as appears by the next words 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to mind the same thing No such matter saith Mr. A. that phrase implyes no more than to mind that thing or that very thing viz. Vers. 14. pressing towards the mark But if he had pleased to have read on but to Phil 4. 2. he would have found 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to signifie Vnanimity And St. Paul 1 Cor. 12 25 opposes the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 to 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 That there be no Schism in the Body but that all the Members should take care of 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 one for another and therefore the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 minding the same things is very aptly used against Schisms and Divisions I should think St. Chrysostom Theodoret and Theophylact all understood the importance of a Greek Phrase as well as our Author and they all make no scruple of interpreting it of the Peace and Concord of Christians Although St. Augustin did not understand much Greek yet he knew the general sense of the Christian Church about this place and he particularly applyes it to the Peace of the Church in St. Cyprians case By this tast let any Man judge of the depth of that Mans learning or rather the height of his Confidence who dares to tell the World That the Vniversal Current and Stream of all Expositors is against my sense of this Text. And for this universal stream and current besides Grotius who speaks exactly to the same sense with mine viz. That those who differ'd about the legal Ceremonies should joyn with other Christians in what they agreed to be Divine he mentions only Tirinus and Zanchy and then cries In a word they all conspire against my Interpretation If he be no better at Polling Non-conformists than Expositors he will have no such reason to boast of his Numbers Had it not been fairer dealing in one word to have referred us to Mr. Pool's Synopsis For if he had looked into Zanchy himself he would have found how he applyed it sharply against Dissensions in the Church Mr. B. saith That the Text speaketh for Vnity and Concord is past Question and that to all Christians though of different attainments and therefore requireth all to live in Concord that are Christians notwithstanding other differences And if he will but allow that by vertue of this Rule Men are bound to do all things lawful for preserving the Peace of the Church we have no farther difference about this matter For then I am sure it will follow that if occasional Communion be lawful constant Communion will be a Duty And so much for the first sort of Dissenters who allow some kind of Communion with our Church to be lawful Sect. 21. II. I come now to consider the charge of Schism or Sinful Separation against Those who though they agree with us in the Substantials of Religion yet deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful I do not speak of any improper 〈…〉 Communion which Dr. O. calls Commâ—â—â—â— Faith and Love this they do allow to the Church of England but no otherwise than as they believe us to be Orthodox Christians yet he seems to go farther as to some at least of our Parochial Churches that they are true Churches But in what sense Are they Churches rightly constituted with whom they may joyn in Communion as Members No that he doth not say But his meaning is that they are not guilty of any such heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship as should utterly deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches And doth this Kindness only belong to some of our Parochial Churches I had thought every Parochial Church was true or false according to its frame and constitution which among us supposeth the owning the Doctrine and Worship received and practised in the Church of England as it is established by Law and if no such Errors in Doctrine nor Idolatrous Praces be allowed by the Church of England then every Parochial Church which is constituted according to it is a true Church But all this amounts to no more than what they call a Metaphysical Truth for he doth not mean that they are Churches with which they may lawfully have Communion And he pleads for the necessity of having Separate Congregations from the necessity of Separating from our Communion although the time was when the bare want of a right Constitution of Churches was thought a sufficient ground for setting up new Churches or for withdrawing from the Communion of a Parochial Church and I do not think the Dr. is of another mind now But however I shall take things as I find them and he insists on as the grounds of this necessity of Separation the things enjoyned by the Law 's of the Land or by the Canons and Orders of the Church as Signing Children Baptized with the Sign of the Cross Kneeling at the Communion Observation of Holy-dayes Constant Vse of the Liturgy Renouncing other Assemblies and the Peoples Right in choice of their own Pastors Neglect of the Duties of Church-members submitting to an Ecclesiastical Rule and Discipline which not one of a Thousand can apprehend to have any thing in it of the Authority of Christ or Rule of the Gospel This is the short account of the Reasons of Separation from our Churches Communion That which I am now to inquire into is Whether such Reasons as these be sufficient ground for
themselves when they saw no hopes of recovering the Churches Communion if they once fell from it Add to this that Novatus or Novatianus for the Greeks confounded their Names in his Epistle to Dionysius of Alexandria saith That he was forced to do what he did by the importunity of the Brethren who out of their zeal for the Purity of the Ecclesiastical Discipline would not comply with the looser part which joyned with Cornelius and therefore chose him to be their Bishop And so much appears by Pacianus that Novatus coming from Carthage to Rome makes a party there for Novatiaâ—us in opposition to Cornelius which consisted chiefly of those who had stood firmest in the Persecution in their Name he Writes to Novatianus declaring That he was chosen by the zealous Party at Rome whereas Cornelius had admitted the lapsed to Communion and consequently corrupted the Discipline of the Christian Church Here we have a concurrence of Dr. O's Pleas Zeal for Reformation of Discipline the greater Edification of the People and the asserting their Right in choosing such a Pastor as was not likely to promote their Edification But notwithstanding these fair pretences the making a Separation in the Church was every where condemned as a great Sin as appears by St. Cyprian Dionysius of Alexandria Theodoret Epiphanius and others Dionysius tells the Author of the Schism that he had better have suffer'd any thing than thus to have made a Rent in the Church and it was as glorious a Martyrdom to die to prevent a Schism as to avoid Idolatry and he thinks it a much greater thing the one being a Martyrdom for the Church the other only for ones own Soul St. Cyprian charges those who were guilty of this Schism with Pride and Arrogance and doing unspeakable mischief to the Church by breaking the Peace of it and will hardly allow those to be Christians who lived in such a Schism when as Epiphanius observes they still pleaded they had the same Faith with the Catholick Church and yet St. Cyprian will not allow that to be true Faith which hath not charity and saith That there can be no true charity where Men do thus break in pieces the Vnity of the Church The Meletians in Aegypt agreed with the Catholick Christians in the Substantials of Religion holding the same Faith with them as Epiphanius relates the Story and their Schism began too about preserving the Discipline of the Church and the best means for the Edification of the People They allowed a Restitution for the lapsed to the Communion of the Church but after a very severe Discipline and an utter incapacity of those in Orders as to any parts of their Functions But Peter Bishop of Alexandria thought the milder way the better whereupon a Separation followed and the Meletians had distinct Churches which they called The Churches of the Martyrs This Schism grew to that height that they would not pray together in Prison nor in the Quarries whither they were sent Meletius being a Bishop was deposed by Peter of Alexandria but he went on still to promote the course of Separation in Thebais and other parts of Egypt upon which the Council of Nice in their Synodical Epistle deprived him of all Episcopal Power and the People that adhered to him of the Power of choosing their own Pastors or rather of proposing the names of those who were to be ordained And so according to Dr. O. they had just cause to continue their Separation still although it were condemned by the Council of Nice Audaeus began his Schism out of a mighty zeal for the Discipline of the Church and a great freedom which he used in reproving the faults of the Bishops and Clergy but meeting with ill usage he withdrew from the Churches communion with his Disciples although he still retained the same Faith and agreed in the Substantials of Religion with the best Christians but forbore all communion with them which Epiphanius accounts 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the most dreadful thing in the World and yet upon Dr. O's Principles of Separation they did a very commendable thing as long as their design was to restore the Churches Discipline and to consult their own greater Edification The followers of Eustathius Sebastenus are on this account likewise excused who withdrew from the publick Congregations on a pretence of greater sanctity and purity in Paphlagonia and stand condemned in several Canons of the Council at Gangrae so are those mention'd and condemn'd in the Councils of Constantinople and Carthage and the Separation of Felicissimus and his Brethren from St. Cyprian all which are set down together in my Sermon but are gently passed over by Dr. O. and Mr. B. and the rest of their Adversaries Only one saith That the Errors of the followers of Eustathius Sebastenus both in Opinion and Practise were very gross which the Council takes notice of and condemns Yet as gross as they were there was a pretence of greater Sanctity and Purity in them For their abstaining from Marriage and peculiarity of Habits and Separate Meetings were all carried on with the same Pretence To proceed then On the same accounts the Donatists will be vindicated in the main grounds of their Schism although they were mistaken in the matter of fact concerning Coecilian for their great pretence was to preserve the purity of the Churches Discipline as may at large be seen in Optatus and St. Augustin and yet they frequently and deliberately call it a most Damnable and Sacrilegious Schism The Luciferians pretended such a zeal for the true Faith and the Discipline of the Church that the only pretence for their Schism was that they could not communicate with those who had subscribed to Arianism or received Ordination from Ariâ—n Bishops as may be seen at large in the Book of Marcellinus and Faustinus And they joyned with the party of Vrsinus at Rome against that of Damasus and complained they were deprived of the liberty of choosing their own Pastors So that upon these grounds there hath scarce been any considerable Schism in the Christian Church but may be justified upon Dr. Owens Reasons for Separation from our Church Sect. 26. 4. Another Argument against this course of Separation is That these grounds will make Separation endless Which is to suppose all the Exhortations of Scripture to Peace and Vnity among Christians to signifie nothing For nothing being more contrary to Vnity than Division and Separation if there be no bounds set but what the fancies of Men dictate to them be sufficient Grounds to justifie Division and Separation any People may break Communion with a Church and set up a new one when they think fit which will leave the Christian Church in a remediless condition against those who break its Peace and Communion It being a true saying of Mr. Cottons of new-New-England That they that separate from their Brethren farther than they have just Cause shall at length
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of new-New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. 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 And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of new-New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
Ages and at last among us the royal Power overthrowing the other reserved the Power of Nomination of Bishops as part of the Prerogative which being allowed in frequent Parlaments the Consent of the People is swallowed up therein since their Acts do oblige the whole Nation For not onely the Statute of 1 Edw. 6. declares The Right of appointing Bishops to be in the King but 25 Edw. 3. it is likewise declared That the Right of disposing Bishopricks was in the King by Right of Patronage derived from his Ancestours before the freedom of elections was granted Which shews not onely the great Antiquity of this Right but the consent of the whole Nation to it And the same is fully related in the Epistle of Edw. 3. to Clement 5. where it is said That the King did dispose of them jure suo Regio by his Royal Prerogative as his Ancestours had done from the first founding of a Christian Church here This is likewise owned in the famous Statute of Carlisle 25 Edw. 1. so that there is no Kingdom where this Right hath been more fully acknowledged by the general consent of the People than here in England and that from the Original planting of a Christian Church here As to the inferiour Right of Patronage it is justly thought to bear equal date with the first settlements of Christianity in peace and quietness For when it began to spread into remoter Villages and places distant from the Cathedral Churches where the Bishop resided with his Presbyters as in a College together a necessity was soon apprehended of having Presbyters fixed among them For the Council of Neocaesarea mentions the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 the Country Presbyters c. 13. whom the Greek Canonists interpret to be such as then were fixed in Country-Cures and this Council was held ten years before the Council of Nice In the time of the first Council of Orange A. D. 441. express mention is made of the Right of Patronage reserved to the first Founders of Churches c. 10. viz. If a Bishop built a Church on his own Land in another Bishop's Diocese yet the right of presenting the Clerk was reserved to him And this was confirmed by the second Council of Arles c. 36. A. D. 452. By the Constitution of the Emperour Zeno. A. D. 479. the Rights of Patronage are established upon the agreements at first made in the endowments of Churches This Constitution was confirmed by Iustinian A. D. 541. and he allows the nomination and presentation of a fit Clerk And the same were settled in the Western Church as appears by the ninth Council of Toledo about A. D. 650. and many Canons were made in several Councils about regulating the Rights of Patronage and the endowments of Churches till at last it obtained by general consent that the Patron might transmit the right of presentation to his heirs and the Bishops were to approve of the Persons presented and to give institution to the Benefice The Barons of England in the Epistle to Gregory IX plead That their Ancestours had the Right of Patronage from the first planting of Christianity here For those upon whose Lands the Churches were built and at whose cost and charges they were erected and by whom the Parochial Churches were endowed thought they had great Reason to reserve the Nomination of the Clerks to themselves And this Ioh. Sarisburiensis saith was received by a general custom of this whole Kingdom So that the Right of Patronage was at first built upon a very reasonable consideration and hath been ever since received by as universal a Consent as any Law or Custom among us And the onely Questions now remaining are whether such a Consent can be made void by the Dissent of some few Persons who plead it to be their inherent Right to choose their own Pastours and supposing that it might be done whether it be reasonable so to doe And I conclude that 6. Things being thus settled by general consent and established Laws there is no ground for the People to resume the liberty of Elections 1. because it was no unalterable Right but might be passed away and hath been by consent of the People upon good considerations and 2. because no such inconveniencies can be alleged against the settled way of disposal of Livings but may be remedied by Laws far easier than those which will follow upon the Peoples taking this Power to themselves which cannot be done in a divided Nation without throwing all into remediless confusion 3. Because other Reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable pretence Beza declaims against it as a thing without any ground in Scripture or any right in Antiquity and subject to infinite disorders In Sweden the Archbishop and Bishops are appointed by the King and so are the Bishops in Denmark In other Lutheran Churches the Superintendents are appointed by the several Princes and Magistrates and in these the Patrons present before Ordination The Synod of Dort hath a Salvo for the Right of Patronage Can. Eccles. 5. In France the Ministers are chosen by Ministers at Geneva by the Council of State which hath Power to depose them And it would be very strange if this inherent and unalterable right of the People should onely be discovered here where it is as unfit to be practised as in any part of the Christian world But Mr. B. is unsatisfied with any Laws that are made in this matter for when the objection is put by him That the People chose the Parlament who make the Laws which give the Patrons Power and therefore they now consent he saith this seemeth a Iest for he saith 1. It cannot be proved that all the Churches or People gave the Patrons that Power 2. They never consented that Parlaments should do what they list and dispose of their Souls or what is necessary to the saving of their Souls 3. They may as well say that they consent to be baptized and to receive the Sacraments because the Parlament consented to it 4. Their forefathers had no power to represent them by such consenting 5. The obligation on the People was Personal and they have not God's consent for the transmutation So that one would think by Mr. B.'s Doctrine all Laws about Patronage are void in themselves and all Rights of Advowson in the King or Noblemen and Gentlemen or Vniversities are meer Vsurpations and things utterly unlawfull among Christians since he makes such a personal obligation to choose their own Pastours to lie on the People that they cannot transfer it by their own Act. But upon second thoughts I suppose he will not deny that the freedom of Publick Churches and the endowments of them do lie within the Magistrates Power and so binding Laws may be made about them unless he can prove that the Magistrates Power doth not extend to those things which the Magistrate gives And if these may be justly settled by Laws then the
among them the Pastour of the Church then baptizes him and immediately after upon the holding up of his hand in token of his owning the Church-Covenant he saith in the name of the Church we receive thee into this Congregation and accept of thy holding up of thy hand as a token that thou wilt hereafter behave thy self as a Church-member ought to do among us What harm is there in all this And yet is not this a Professing Dedicating Covenanting Symbolical Sacramental Sign as much as the Sign of the Cross is among us Doth not holding up the hand signify and represent Is it not therefore a significant and symbolical Ceremony Doth it not import an obligation lying on the person Is it not therefore dedicating covenanting and sacramental as much as the sign of the Cross Why then should this be scrupled more than the other And by this Mr. B.'s great mistake appears about this matter who supposeth that the Minister speaketh in the name of Christ when he signs with the sign of the Cross and as God's Officer from him and so dedicates him by this sign to the service of him that died upon the Cross whereas the Minister in the Act speaks in the name of the Church as evidently appears by those words We receive him into the Congregation of Christ 's Flock and then follows as the solemn rite of Admission And do sign him with the sign of the Cross c. All publick and solemn Admissions into Societies having some peculiar Ceremony belonging to them And so as Baptism besides its sacramental Efficacy is a Rite of Admission into Christ's Catholick Church so the sign of the Cross is into our Church of England in which this Ceremony is used without any prescription to other Churchs Sect. 30. But saith Mr. B. though the sign of the Cross may be lawfull as a transient arbitrary professing sign yet not as a dedicating sign and as the common professing symbol of baptized Persons If it be lawfull in the former sense I cannot understand how it should be unlawfull in the latter Yes saith he the instituting of the latter belongs to God onely How doth that appear Because he hath made two Sacraments already for that end True but not onely for that end but to be the means and instruments of conveying his Grace to men which none but God himself can doe and therefore none but he ought to appoint the means for that end And we account it an unsufferable insolency in the Roman Churches for them to take upon them to make application of the Merits of Christ to Rites of their own Institution which is the onely possible way for a Church to make new Sacraments but if every significant custom in a Church must pass for a new Sacrament then sitting at the Sacrament is a new Sacrament because we are told it betokens rest and Communion with Christ then putting off the Hat in Prayer is a new Sacrament because it is a professing sign of Reverence then laying on the hand and kissing the Book in swearing are new Sacraments because they are publick symbolical Rites But saith Mr. B. it belongeth onely to the King to make the common badge or symbol of his own Subjects Yet I hope every Nobleman or Gentleman may give a distinct Livery without Treason And therefore why may not every Church appoint its own Rite of admission of Members into its Body But the obligation here is to the common duties of Christians And is not every Church-member bound to perform these That which is peculiar is the manner of admission by the sign of the Cross and this Rite our Church imposes on no others but its own Members i. e. makes it necessary to none else and to shew it to be onely a solemn Rite of Admission it allows it to be forborn in private Baptism But saith Mr. B. Christs Sacraments or Symbols are sufficient we need not devise more and accuse his Institutions of insufficiency If it be lawfull the Church is to judge of the expediency and not every private person And to appoint other Rites that do not encroach upon the Institutions of Christ by challenging any effect peculiar to them is no charging them with insufficiency Well saith Mr. B. but it is unlawfull on another account viz. as it is an Image used as a medium in God's Worship and so forbidden in the Second Commandment He may as well make it unlawfull to use Words in God's Worship for are not they Images and represent things to our minds as well as a transient sign of the Cross Nay doth not Mr. B. in the same place make it lawfull to make an Image an Object or Medium of our consideration exciting our minds to Worship God as he instanceth in a Crucifix or historical Image of Christ or some holy man If any Divine of the Church of England had said any thing to this purpose what out-cries of Popery had been made against us How many Advances had we presently made for letting in the grossest Idolatry How many Divines of the Church of Rome had been quoted to shew that they went no further and desired no more than this Yet the transient sign of the Cross without any respect to Worship is condemned among us as forbidden by the Second Commandment and that by the same person and in the same page But it is used as a medium in God's Worship Is our Worship directed to it or do we kneel before it as Mr. B. allows men may do before a Crucifix Do we declare that we are excited by it to worship God No all these are rejected by our Church How then is it a medium in God's Worship Why forsooth it is not a meer circumstance but an outward act of Worship What as much as kneeling before a Crucifix and yet that is lawfull according to him supposing the mind be onely excited by it Suppose then we onely use the sign of the Cross to excite mens consideration in the act of Worship what harm were in it upon Mr. B.'s ground But our Church allows not so much onely taking it for a lawfull outward Ceremony which hath nothing of Worship belonging to it how comes it then to be a medium in God's Worship For Mr. B. saith in the same place there is a twofold medium in God's Worship 1. Medium excitans that raises our minds to Worship God as a Crucifix c. 2. Medium terminans or as he calls it terminus in genere causae finalis a worshipped medium or the terminus or the thing which we worship mediately on pretence of representing God and that we worship him in it ultimately And this he takes to be the thing forbidden directly in the second Commandment viz. to worship a Creature with mind or body in the Act of Divine Worship as representing God or as the mediate term of our Worship by which we send it unto God as if it were more acceptable to him So
more agreeable to the sense of their Church and that the argument is of no force against it because it is so hard to be understood for then they must quit many other Doctrines besides this Ioh. Baptista Gonet a late learned Thomist not onely contends earnestly for this opinion but saith The greater part of their Divines assert it and those of greatest reputation as Ruardus Tapper Vega Sayrus Ysambertus Suarez Valentia Bellarmin Reginaldus Moeratius Ripalda and many more And Conquetius he saith reckons up Fifty three eminent Divines who hold the physical Causality of the Sacrament So that Mr. B. is both very much mistaken in the common Doctrine of the Roman Schools and in applying the moral Causality of the Sacraments as it is asserted by their Divines to the significancy of our Ceremonies 2. As to the Protestant Doctrines he represents that in very ambiguous terms for he saith That Protestants commonly maintain that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally If it be their Doctrine that the Sacraments are instituted for the conveying of Grace at all which he seems to yield and if he did not might be fully proved from the Testimonies of the most eminent Reformers abroad as well as at home This is sufficient to shew that the sign of the Cross can never be advanced to the dignity of a Sacrament among us since in no sense it is held to be an Instrument appointed for the conveying of Grace And so this Phrase of a New Sacrament is a thing onely invented to amuse and perplex tender and injudicious persons There being not the least ground for it that I can discern and yet such pretences as these have served to darken People's minds and have filled them with strange fears and scruples yea some who have conquer'd their prejudices as to other things have not been able to get over this mighty stumbling-block which I have therefore taken the more pains to remove out of their way And yet after all Mr. B. declares That if it be a sin it is the Ministers and not the Person 's who offers the Child to be baptized and another man's sinfull mode will not justifie the neglect of our duty And therefore supposing the sign of the Cross to be as bad as some make it yet it can be no pretence for Separation Sect. 32. But Mr. A. hath a farther blow at our Church for allowing worshipping towards the Altar the East and at the sound of the word Iesus which he saith are made the Motive of Worship if not something else The lawfulness of these things so far as they are required by our Church I had formerly defended against the Papists and now Mr. A. borrows their Weapons from them although he doth not manage them with that skill and dexterity which T. G. used I had said that bowing at the name of Iesus was no more than going to Church at the Toll of a Bell the Worship being not given to the Name but to Christ at the sound of his Name Why may not saith he an Image give warning to the Eye when to worship God as well as a Bell to the Ear I will tell him since he needs it because an Image is a mighty disparagement to an infinite and invisible Being it is directly contrary to his Law to worship him by an Image it is against the sense of the Christian Church in its best and purest Ages this one would have thought I had proved so much against the Papists that I had little reason to expect such a question from a Protestant But such men do too much discover whose part they are willing to take against the Church of England He grants the Papists go too far in preferring an Image higher than to be Motivum Cultûs 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 When I read this I began to pity the man being in some fear lest something had a little disordered his fancy For where do we ever allow such an use of Images in our Church If he had written against Mr. B. who allows a Crucifix to be Medium excitans he had some reason to have answered him but I have none But he brings it home to us for saith he If men do sin who make an Image an ordinary stated motive of Worship then how shall we excuse our own adorations What doth the man mean I am yet afraid all things are not right somewhere We acknowledge no adorations but what are due to the Divine Majesty and do these need to be excused And what consequence is there from the unlawfulness of the Worship of Images against our worshipping of God Let him first prove that we give adoration to any besides the Divine Majesty before we shall go about to excuse our adorations But if men do not sin in making an Image a stated Motive of Worship whoever said they did not I am sure not our Church But let this pass what follows then saith he why do we not introduce Images into our Churches Ask Mr. B. that Question and not us of the Church of England If we allowed the Worship of Images to be lawfull this were a pertinent Question but since we deny it what makes all this against us which if our Church-men shall venture upon I pray stay till they do before you charge us with it Are not these men hugely to seek for Arguments against our Church that talk at this rate But he saith they may doe it with equal reason Here is something now fit to be proved We utterly deny that we may worship Images on the same Reason that we perform external adoration to God by bowing the Body or to Iesus at the mention of his name Hold now to this and prove it Instead of that he shews the difference between going to Church at the sound of a Bell and bowing at the name of Iesus viz. That the Bell tolls out of Worship to bring them to it but the sound of the word Iesus is in the middle of Worship when mens minds should be intent on devotion and not sit listening and watching as Whittington ' s Cat watcht the Mouse there 't is for you viz. what he hath laboured for all this while for the casual starting of a word and the dropping of two syllables But the Question is not about the seasonableness of doing this when we are in other Acts of Devotion and immediate Application to God which no body contends for that I know of but about the lawfulness of doing it in the time of Divine Service when we hear the name of Iesus repeated in the Lessons or the Creed and the Canon which requires it refers to the former Custom and in the Injunctions of Queen Elizabeth the Lessons and Sermons are mentioned particularly and although it be said or otherwise in the Church pronounced yet by the manner
then can justifie this Separation but a difference of Opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship Hold saith he the consequence is not good for there are certain middle things between substantial parts of worship and bare circumstances about which it will be lawful to divide though otherwise we agree in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship So that here a Separation is justified 1. on the account of such things which are confessed to be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of Worship 2. Although there be an agreement in the substantial parts of Worship and consequently although these middle kind of things be not made substantial parts of worship For that he charged us with in the Antecedent and now allowing the Antecedent and denying the Consequence he must grant that it is lawful to separate on the account of Ceremonies although they be made no parts of worship at all For if they be neither substantial nor circumstantial parts of worship they can be none at all and yet he saith it is lawful to divide about them And which is more pleasant when he goes about to prove the lawfulness of separating for the sake of these things he doth it by undertaking to shew that they are made substantial parts of Worship For thus he argues The Church of England hath exalted these things i. e. Ceremonies to a high preferment in worship to signifie the same things with the Sacramental Elements to make them necessary to salvation as far as man can make them and therefore they conclude them sinful If their preferment in Worship makes them sinful then they must be either substantial or circumstantial parts of Worship and their separation is not upon the account of their being Ceremonies but those Ceremonies are supposed to be made Parts of Worship which I have answered already But after all our arguings about these matters Mr. A. saith the Controversie stands still where it did these hundred years and more I utterly deny that for the Nonconformists have advanced more towards Separation these last ten years than they did in a hundred years before as appears by the foregoing discourse However they are still unsatisfied in Conscience about these matters and so long they cannot joyn with us and our Church excommunicates those who condemn our ceremonies so that there appears from hence a necessity of separation and if it be necessary it cannot be denied to be lawful This is the fairest remaining Plea for Separation which I shall consider both wayes 1. As it respects the Churches censures 2. As it respects the judgement of Conscience 1. As it respects the Churches censures This Mr. B. often insists upon The Canons saith he excommucate ipso facto all that say the imposed Conformity is unlawful If this be unjust is it separation to be so excommunicated And who is the Schismatick here Would you have excommunicate men communicate with you And if men be wrongfully excommunicate are they thereby absolved from all publick Worshipping of God or do they lose their Right to all Church-communion To this I answer That the Excommunication denounced is not against such as modestly scruple the lawfulness of things imposed but against those who obstinately affirm it The words of the Canon are not as Mr. B. quotes them If any one do but affirm any thing in the Liturgy Ceremonies c. to be unlawful are excommunicate ipso facto but whosoever shall Affirm the Ceremonies of the Church of England established by Law to be impious Anti-Christian or Superstitious let him be Excommunicate ipso facto Mr. B.'s words bear quite another sense from those of the Canon for to say if any man do but affirm c. it implies that a bare single affirmation incurrs excommunication ipso facto but when the Canon saith if any shall affirm c it implies these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately Both which the word Affirm will bear For as S. Augustin very well saith every mans errour is born with until he either finds an accuser or he obstinately defends his opinion Tam diu sustinetur peccatum aut error cujusâ—ibet donec aut accusatorem inveniat aut pravam opinionem pertinaci animositate defendat All excommunication doth suppose precedent admonition according to the Rule If he will not hear the Church let him be as an Heathen or a Publican Therefore general excommunications although they be latae sententiae as the Canonists speak do not affect particular persons until the evidence be notorious not only of the bare fact but of the contumacy joyned with it Besides such excommunications which are de jure latae sententiae are rather to be looked on as Comminations than as formal excommunications For Gerson putting the question what the effect of such excommunications is he answers that it is no more than this that there needs no new judicial process but upon proof or confession the Iudge may pronounce the sentence Which he saith he learnt from his Master who was Pet. de Alliaco the famous Cardinal of Cambray And if it requires a new sentence then it doth not actually excommunicate But of this the learned Arch-bishop of Spalato hath discoursed coursed at large to whom I refer the Reader As to the practice of Canon Law in England Lyndwood saith that a declaratory sentence of the Judge is necessary notwithstanding the Excommunication ipso facto And it is a Rule in our Church that Persons excommunicate are to be publickly denounced excommunicate in a Cathedral or Parochial Church every six months that others may have notice of them and until the sentence be thus declared I do not know how far particular persons can think themselves obliged to forbear Communion on the account of a general sentence of excommunication though it be said to be ipso facto For although the sentence seem peremptory yet ipso facto doth suppose a fact and such as deserves excommunication in the sense of the Church of which there must be evident proof brought before the sentence can take hold of the Person And to make the sentence valid as to the person there must be due execution of it and the question in this case then is whether any person knowing himself to be under such qualifications which incur a sentence of excommunication be bound to execute this sentence upon himself which he must do if he thinks himself bound to separate from our Church on the account of this general excommunication And so Mr. B. himself seems to resolve this point Although saith he we are excommunicated ipso facto yet we are not bound our selves to execute their sentence but may stay in Communion till they prove the fact and do the execution on us themselves by refusing us And so he hath fully answered his own objection But can those be called Schismaticks for not communicating
with a Church who are first excommunicated by that Church Yes in these cases they may 1. when there is a just and sufficient Cause for that sentence For otherwise no Church could condemn any excommunicated Persons for Schism if it declared before hand that all those who held such Doctrines or condemned such Practices should be excommunicated To make this plain by Instances Suppose the Churches of New England declare the sentence of excommunication ipso facto against all that oppose Infant-baptism R. Williams and his Company oppose it they upon this are actually excommunicated may the Churches of New England call these men Schismaticks or not If they are Schismaticks notwithstanding the sentence of excommunication then the denouncing this sentence before hand doth not excuse them from the guilt of Schism By the Constitution of the Churches of France every Minister that refuses to subscribe to the Orders among them is to be declared a Schismatick Would this make such a one not to be a Schismatick because this amounts to an excommunication ipso facto So in Scotland 1641. Subscription to the Presbyterian discipline was required under pain of excommunication if any had been excommunicated on this account would this excuse them from the charge of Schism in the judgement of the Covenanters By the Constitutions of Geneva any one that opposes or contemns the Authority of that Church for a year together is liable to the sentence of banishment for a whole year as Calvin himself relates it Suppose this were meerly excommunication for so long would not Calvin have thought them Schismaticks for all that For he fully declares his mind in this case on occasion of a certain Non-conformist in an Epistle to Farell where he advises that he should be first summoned before the Magistrate if that did not prevail they should proceed to excommunication of a person who by his obstinacy disturbed the order of the Church which saith he is agreeable to ancient Councils and the mind of God in Scripture therefore let him that will not submit to the Orders of a Society be cast out of it Here we see excommunication justified against such as refuse to obey the Orders of a Church and much more certainly if they publickly affirm them to be Impious Antichristian or Superstitious as 8. Canon expresseth and no Church in the world but will think excommunication reasonable upon the like grounds and therefore if there be such a thing as Schism they may be guilty of it still although excommunication be denounced against them on such accounts 2. If they proceed to form new Churches as will appear evident to any one that reflects on the former instances and let him judge whether all persons so excommunicated would not have been condemned much more for Schismaticks if they had set up new Churches in opposition to theirs S. Augustin puts the case of good men unjustly excommunicated and he saith they are to bear it with patience for the peace of the Church and such will still maintain the true faith sine ullâ Conventiculorum segregatione without running into separate Meetings although they do believe themselves unjustly excommunicated Such as these saith he the Father which seeth in secret will reward and crown in secret This kind seems very rare but there want not instances yea there are more than can be believed 2. As to the judgement of Conscience The Author of the Letter out of the Countrey lays the Foundation of the separation upon the force of Scruples mighty Scruples Scruples of a long standing and of a large extent Scruples that there is no hopes to remove without some very overpowering impression on mens minds I am so much of another mind that I think a little impartiality and due consideration would do the business but as long as men read and hear and judge only of one side and think it a temptation to examine things as they ought to do and cry out they are satisfied already there is not much hopes of doing good upon such but I think they can have no great comfort in such Scruples Men that really scruple things out of tenderness of Conscience are sincerely willing to be better informed and glad of any light that brings them satisfaction and do not fly out into rage and violent passion against those who offer to remove their Scruples Hath this been the temper of our scrupulous Brethren of late Let their Scruples be touched never so tenderly they cannot bear it and take it extremely ill of those who would better inform them Mr. B. freely tells me that he that thinks his own or others reasonings will ever change all the truely honest Christians in the Land as to the unlawfulness of the things imposed knoweth so little of matters or of men or of Conscience as that he is unmeet to be a Bishop or a Priest What is the reason of such a severe saying Where lies the strength and evidence of these Scruples Why may not honest men be cured of their errors and mistakes as I am perswaded these are such which they call Scruples Is there no hopes to bring the People to a better temper and more judgement For I know nothing more is necessary for the cure of them Here is no depth of learning no subtilty of reasoning no endless quotation of Fathers necessary about these matters The dispute lies in a narrow compass and men may see light if they will But what if they will not Then we are to consider how far a wilfull mistake or error of Conscience will justifie men I say it doth not cannot justifie them in doing evil and that I am sure breaking the Peace of the Church for the sake of such Scruples is And this I had said in my Sermon which I take to be very material for our scrupulous persons to consider For suppose they should be mistaken doth this error of Conscience justifie their separation or not If not they may be in an ill condition for all their Scruples or their confidence And so Mr. Baxter hath long since declared that if we do through weakness or perverseness take lawful things to be unlawful that will not excuse us in our disobedience Our error is our sin and one sin will not excuse another sin But Mr. A. saith 1 That I do ill to put together wilfull Error and mistake of Conscience when I say they do not excuse from sin since there is so great a difference between a wilfull Error and a mistake of simple ignorance What strange cavilling is this When any one may see that I join wilfull both to Error and Mistake And is not a mistake or error of Conscience all one If I had said a mistake of simple ignorance doth not excuse from sin I had contradicted the whole design of that discourse which is to shew that there must be wilfulness in the error or mistake which doth not excuse For I say expresly if
the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse This is but a bad beginning in a Discourse about Conscience 2. If no error will excuse from sin why is the Question afterwards put by me What error will excuse I answer 1. it is an exercise of patience to be troubled with a cavilling adversary 2. Do not I say as plainly as words can express it that a wilful error doth not excuse from sin And the question afterwards put concerns the same thing and the Answer I give to it is if the error be wholly involuntary it doth excuse but if it be wilful it doth not Is this mans conscience full of Scruples that writes at this rate with so little regard to the plain meaning and words of him whom he pretends to confute 3. He saith I put one of the wildest cases that ever was put viz. If a man think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation that separation is nevertheless a sin for his thinking himself bound to do it For 1. It may be justly questioned whether it be possible for a man in his Wits to think himself bound to divide the Church by sinful Separation What Sophisters arguments are these As though we did not commonly speak of the thing as it is and not as the Person apprehends it S. Paul did think himself bound to a sinful persecution although he did not think it so when he did it The Iews thought themselves bound to kill the Apostles which was wilful murder and yet they were men in their wits The false Apostles thought themselves bound to divide the Church by a sinful separation How then comes this to be thought so impossible a case as to the thing it self for I was not so foolish to put the case concerning men who thought themselves bound to commit a sin knowing it to be a sin 2. He much questions whether ever any did think himself bound to divide a Church he may possibly think himself bound to avoid it If he may think himself bound to do that which makes divisions in a Church it is sufficient to my purpose And did not the false Apostles do so and have not others followed their examples And thus after other trifling Cavils to the same purpose after his manner he yields all that I say and saith It is freely granted by all the world that wilful Error doth not excuse from sin And after many words about the case of an erroneous conscience he concludes that I deliver nothing but the common doctrine of all Casuists only he thinks it not pertinent to the matter in hand Why so was not the matter in hand about the duty of complying with an established Rule And was it not very pertinent to this to shew how far an erroneous conscience may or may not excuse from sin But Mr. A. saith it should have been about the Power of Conscience concerning an established Rule of mans making and such for which they have neither general nor particular warrant from God so to make Is not this indeed to the purpose First to suppose an unlawful rule imposed and then to enquire what conscience is to do about it My business was to shew that men were not in doubtful cases to satisfie themselves with this that they followed their consciences because their consciences might err and if that Error happened to be wilful being contracted for want of due care what they did might not only be sinful in it self but imputed to them as sins Which all men who pretended any regard to conscience ought to have an eye to for why do they pretend conscience but to â—void sin And if under a wilful error of 〈◊〉 they may still be guilty of great sins as the Ieâ—â— and S. Paul were then men ought not to satisfie theâ—selves barely with this pretence that they do as 〈…〉 direct them This was the plain 〈◊〉 of that â—art of my Sermon and I leave any 〈…〉 whether it were not pertinent But he saith 〈…〉 if they be such are wholl◠〈…〉 invincible Ignorance If 〈…〉 better for them I hope they have 〈…〉 in their own breasts for it than what appears in some of their late Books for neither a peevish angry scornful provoking way of writing about these matters nor a light scurrilous cavilling Sophistical Answer to a serious discourse are any great signs of such an impartial endeavour after satisfaction as Mr. A. boasts of I cannot tell how much they have read the Scriptures and studied this Controversie nor how earnestly they have pray'd for direction but I have seen enough of their unfriendly debates which give me no great satisfaction in this matter But I leave this to God and their own consciences to judge being very willing to hope and believe the best To return to the Author of the Letter The main force of what he saith lies in this that those 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 This is new doctrine and never heard of in the dayes of the old Puritans for they supposed men obliged to continue in the Communion of this Church although there were some things they scrupled and could not conquer those scruples And this they supposed to be far enough from a State of Paganism But they scruple the Vse of the Sacraments with us and much more living under some of our Ministers I never heard this last alledged for a ground of separation till very lately and it hath been considered already And it is a very hard case with a Church if People must fly into Separation because all their Ministers are not such as they ought to be But if they do scruple joyning in communion with our Church I would fain know whether as often as men do scruple joyning with others their Separation be lawful If it be it is a vain thing to talk of any settled Constitution of a Church whether Episcopal Presbyterian or Independent for this Principle overthrows them all I will instance particularly in the last as most favourable to such kind of Liberty And I need not suppose a case since such hath already happened several times in New England R. Williams is one remarkable Instance who scrupled many things in their Churches and therefore could joyn no longer with them and thought himself bound to set up a separate congregation among them and the People who scrupled as well as he chose him for their Pastor What is there in this case but is every whit as justifiable as the present separation But did the Churches of New England allow this for a just Cause so far from it that R. Williams published grievous complaints to the world of the persecution he underwent for it Mr. Baxter mentions another Instance since this from the mouth of Mr. Norton an eminent Minister of New England viz. of a Church that
separated from a Church on the account of their Preachers having human learning and upon all the applications and endeavours that could be used towards them their answer was That is your judgement and this is ours i. e. they could not conquer their Scruples and therefore must persist in separation or return to Paganism Mr. Cobbet of New England mentions a third instance one Obadiah Holmes being unsatisfied with the proceedings of the Church of Rehoboth withdraws from their Communion and sets up another Assembly in the Town and upon his obstinate continuance therein was solemnly excommunicated by them And what the late differences among them concerning the Subject of Baptism and Consociation of Churches may come to time will discover I would only know whether if Mr. Davenport and the dissenting party there from the determination of their Synod should proceed to Separation whether this Separation be justifiable or not This is certain that the Dissenters there do charge their Brethren with Innovation and Apostasie from their first principles and say their consciences cannot comply with their Decrees and if they proceed those Churches may be broken in pieces by these principles of Separation As the Separate Congregations in the Low Countreys most of them were by new Scruples which the People could not conquer for the Anabaptists commonly raised Scruples among their members and carried away many of them And so they had done in New England and dissolved those Churches before this time if this principle had been allowed there viz. that where People cannot conquer their scruples they may proceed to Separation No they tell them they must preserve the Peace of their Churches and if they cannot be quiet among them the world is wide enough for them So they sent R. Williams and others out of their Colonies notwithstanding the far greater danger of Paganism among the Indians This I only mention to shew that no settled Church doth allow this liberty of Separation because men cannot conquer their Scruples And upon the same ground not only Anabaptists and Quakers but the Papists themselves must be allowed the liberty of setting up separate Congregations For I suppose this Gentleman will not deny but they may have Scruples too many Scruples and of long standing and among great numbers and they have Priests enough at liberty to attend them And by that time all these have set up among us shall we not be in a very hopeful way to preserve the Protestant Religion These consequences do flow so naturally from such principles that I wonder that none of those who have undertaken to defend the Cause of Separation have taken any care to put any stop to it or to let us know where we may fix and see an end of it what scruples are to be allowed and what not and whether it be lawful to separate as long as men can go on in scrupling and say they cannot conquer their Scruples Are there no Scruples among us but only against the sign of the Cross and God-fathers and God-mothers in Baptism and kneeling at the Lords Supper Are there none that scruple the lawfulness of Infant-baptism among us Are there none that scruple the very use of Baptism and the Lords Supper saying they are not to be literally understood Are there none that scruple giving common respect to others as a sort of Idolatry Are there none that scruple the validity of our Ordinations and say we can have no true Churches because we renounce Communion with the Pope What is to be done with all these and many more scruplers who profess they cannot conquer their Scruples no more than others can do theirs about our ceremonies and such weighty things as the use of God-fathers and God-mothers This I mention because this Gentleman seems to look on it as a more dreadful thing than the sign of the Cross. For having spoken of that he addes Nor is it in it self of less weight perhaps 't is of much greater that in Baptism the Parents are not suffered to be Sponsors for their Children but others must appear and undertake for them which he repeats soon after And yet T. C. who saw as much into these matters as any that have come after him in the Admonitions declared that this was a thing arbitrary and left to the discretion of the Church And in his first Answer he saith For the thing it self considering that it is so generally received of all the Churches they do not mislike of it So that on the same ground it seems all oâ—â—er Protestant Churches may be scrupled at as well as ours and yet not only this Gentleman but Mr. B. several times mentions this as one of the grounds of the unlawfulness of the Peoples joyning in Communion with us nay he calls this his greatest objection and yet he confesseth that if the Sponsors do but represent the Parents our Baptism is valid and lawful Now where is it that our Church excludes such a representation Indeed by Canon 29 the Parents are not to be compelled to be present nor suffered to answer as Susceptors for their Children but the Parents are to provide such as are fit to undertake that Office In the Bohemian Churches there seems to be an express compact between the Parents and the Sponsors but there is no declaration of our Church against such an implicit one as may be reasonably inferred from the consent of the parties For the Parents desire of the Sponsors undertaking such an Office for his Child is in effect transferring his own Right to them and so they may be said to represent the Parents If our Church had appointed the Sponsors without 〈◊〉 against the consent of the Parents then none couâ—â— in reason suppose that there was any implicit compact between them But since they are of the Parents choosing what they do in that office is supposed to be with their full consent If Baptism were solemnly celebrated as of old at some certain seasons only and indispensable occasions required the Parents absence might not they appoint others to be Sponsors for their Children upon mutual consent and agreement among themselves Our Churches not permitting the Parents themselves to be Sponsors is but like such an occasion of absence and the intentention of our Church is not to supersede the obligation of Parents but to superinduce a farther obligation upon other Persons for greater security of performance If men be negligent in doing their duty must the Church bear the blame and this be pleaded for a ground of Separation from her Communion But there is something beyond this which lies at the bottom of this scruple viz. that the Child 's Right to Baptism depends on the Right of the Parents and therefore if the Parents be excluded and only Sponsors admitted the Children so baptized have no right to Baptism For Mr. B.'s first Question is which way the Child cometh to have right to Baptism any more than all
the Infidels Children in the world And his next is whether the Church of England require any ground of title in the Infant besides the Sponsion of the fore-described God-fathers and Gods general promise I answer 1. The Church by requiring Sponsors doth not exclude any Title to Baptism which the Child hath by the Right of the Parents For the Sponsors may be supposed to appear in a threefold Capacity 1. As representing the Parents in offering up the Child to Baptism and so whatever right the Parents have that is challenged when the Child is brought to be baptized 2. As representing the Child in the Answers that are made in Baptism which is a very ancient and universal practice of the Christian Church for it was not only observed in the Latin Churches in S. Augustins time and in the Greek Churches in S. Chrysostom's and hath so continued ever since but the Aethiopick and Armenian Churches do still observe it 3. In their own capacity when they promise to take care of the good education of the Child in the principles of the Christian faith in the charge given to them after Baptism So that since one of these capacities doth not destroy another they all succeeding each other there is no reason to say that the Church doth exclude the right which comes by the Parents 2 If the Parents be supposed to have no right yet upon the Sponsion of God-fathers the Church may have right to administer Baptism to Children Not as though their Sponsion gave the right but was only intended to make them parties to the Covenant in the Childs name and Sureties for performance To make this clear we must consider that administration of Baptism is one considerable part of the Power of the Keys which Christ first gave to the Apostles and is ever since continued in the Officers of the Church By vertue of this Power they have Authority to give admission into the Church to capable Subjects The Church of Christ as far as we can trace any records of Antiquity hath alwayes allowed Children to be capable Subjects of Admission into the Christian Church but lest the Church should fail of its end and these Children not be afterwards well instructed in their Duty it required Sponsors for them who were not only to take care of them for the future but to stand as their sureties to ratifie their part of the Covenant which Baptism implyes And the ancient Church went no farther as to the right of Baptism than this for since the Power of the Keys was in the Church to give admission to capable Subjects since the Catholick Church did alwayes judge Infants capable there seemed to be no more necessary for their admission than the undertaking of Sponsors in their name All this appears from S. Augustines Epistle ad Bonifacium where he saith 1. That the Childs benefit by Baptism doth not depend upon the intention of those that offer him For Boniface put the question to S. Augustin about some who offered Children to Baptism not for any spiritual benefit but for corporal health notwithstanding this saith S. Augustine if the due form of Baptism be observed the spiritual effect of it is obtained 2. That the Churches right is chiefly concerned in the baptism of Infants For saith he the Children are offered to Baptism and the Spiritual Grace to be received thereby not so much by those in whose arms they are carried for so the Sponsors used to carry them in their right arms as by the whole Society of the Faithful Tota ergo mater Ecclesia quae in sanctis est facit quia tota omnes tota singulos parit so that it is by the Churches right that he supposeth them to receive baptism and the benefits by it 3. That there is no necessity that the Parents themselves offer their Children For he calls it a mistake to think that Children receive the benefit in Baptism as to the remission of Original Guilt or the account of their Parents offering them For many are offered to Baptism by strangers and slaves sometimes by their Masters And when Parents are dead Children are offered by such as take pity upon them and sometimes Children exposed by Parents and sometimes as they are taken up by holy Virgins which neither have Children nor intend to have any 4. That the Answers made by the Sponsors in Baptism in the name of the Child are a part of the solemnity of Baptism Not as though the Child did really believe yet it is said to believe on the account of the Sacrament which supposeth faith For the Sacraments because of the resemblance between them and the things represented by them do carry the name of the things represented as saith he the Sacrament of Christs body after a certain manner is called his Body and the Sacrament of his blood is called his blood so the Sacrament of faith is called faith i. e. the Baptismal Covenant supposing believing on one part the Church supplies that part by the Sponsors which cannot be performed by the Children Thence he saith ipsa responsio ad celebrationem pertinet Sacramenti so that then the Church looked upon the Sponsors Answering as a necessary part of the solemnity of Baptism Thence S. Augustin elsewhere saith that the fide-jussores or Sureties did in the name of the Children renounce the Devil and all his Pomp and Works and in another place he declares that he would not baptize a Child without the Sponsors answering for the Child that he would renounce the Devil and turn to God and that they believed he was baptized for the remission of sins 3. Those who think themselves bound to baptize Children only by vertue of the Parents right must run into many perplexing Scruples about baptizing Children and be forced to exclude the far greater number of those that are offered For 1. They are not well agreed what it is which gives Parents a right to have their Children baptized whether a dogmatical Faith be sufficient or a justifying faith be necessary If saving faith be necessary whether the outward profession of it be sufficient Whether that ought to be taken for a true profession which is only pretended to be a true sign of the mind or that only which is really so Whether profession be required for it self or as a discovery of something further Whether seeming seriousness in profession be sufficient or real serioâ—sness be required What we must judge real seriousness in profession as distinct from inward sincerity What contradiction may be allowed to make a profession not serious Whether besides a serious profession it be not necessary to be a practical profession and what is necessary for the judging a profession to be practical Whether besides meer practical profession the positive signs of inward Grace be not necessary And whether besides all these actual confederation and joyning in Church Covenant be not necessary And if it be whether the Children of confederated Parents
the sign of the Cross at the same time when it disputed most vehemently against Images 2. For Circumcision which he tells us may be used as signifying the circumcision of the heart He knows very well that our Church joins significancy and decency together in the matter of Ceremonies and no man can imagine that such a kind of significancy as that he mentions should be sufficient to introduce such a practice which is so repugnant to Decency among us Besides that S. Paul makes it so great a badge of the obligation to the Law that he saith If ye be circumcised Christ profiteth you nothing which was never said of any of our Ceremonies And whereas he saith it is observed in Abassia as a mystical Ceremony he is much mistaken if their Emperour Claudius say true for he saith it is only a National Custom without any respect to Religion like the cutting of the face in some parts of Aethiopia and Nubia and boreing the ear among the Indians And Ludolphus proves it to be no other because it is done by a woman in private without any witnesses 3. As to his Paschal Lamb in memory of Christ our Passeover that is sacrificed for us We owe greater Reverence to Gods own Institutions that were intended to typifie Christ to come than to presume to turn them quite another way to represent what is past Especially since Christ is become the great Sacrifice for the sins of mankind And he might as well have mentioned the Scape-Goat and the Red Heifer as the Paschal Lamb since they were all Types of the great Sacrifice of Propitiation But why are things never used by the Primitive Church for as to his story of Innocent 2. be it true or false it is nothing to us brought to parallel our Ceremonies when the great Reason of our Churches retaining any Ceremonies was declared from the beginning of the Reformation to be out of Reverence to the Ancient Church which observed the same kind of Ceremonies The only remaining pretence for the present Separation is that there is a parity of reason as to their Separating from us and our Separating from the Church of Rome For so Mr. A. urgeth the argument we Separate from them because they impose doubtful things for certain false for true new for old absurd for reasonable then this will hold for themselves because they think so and that was all I opposed to T. G. But is it possible for any man that pretends to be a Protestant Divine to think the case alike When 1. They confess our Doctrine in the 39 Articles to be true we reject all their additional Articles in Pius 4. his Creed not only as false but some of them as absurd and unreasonable as men can invent viz. that of Transubstantiation which is made by them the great trying and burning point But what is there which the most inveterate enemies of our Church can charge in her doctrine as new as false as absurd nay they all yield to the Antiquity to the Truth to the Reasonableness of our Doctrine and yet is not Mr. A. ashamed to make the case seem parallel But what new and strong Reason doth he bring for it You may be sure it is some mighty thing for he saith presently after it that my Importunity hath drawn them out of their reservedness and they have hitherto been modest to their prejudice Alas for him that his modesty should ever hurt him But what is this dangerous Secret that they have hitherto kept in out of meer veneration to the Church of England Let us prepare our selves for this unusual this killing charge Why saith Mr. A. In the Catechism of the Church this Doctrine is contained It is matter of Doctrine then I see although we are confessed to be agreed in the 39 Articles as far as they concern Doctrine But what is this notorious doctrine It is saith he that Infants perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Did I not fear it was some dreadful thing some notorious heresie condemned by one or two at least of the four General Councils But is it said so in plain words or is it wire-drawn by far-fetched Consequences No it is plain enough for the Question is What is required of Persons to be baptized Answ. Repentance whereby they forsake sin and faith whereby they stedfastly believe the promises of God made to them in that Sacrament Quest. Why then are Infants baptized when by reason of their tender age they cannot perform them Answ. Because they promise them both by their Sureties which promise when they come to age themselves are bound to perform But I pray doth it hence follow that Infants do perform Faith and Repentance by their Sureties Are not the words express that they promise both by their Sureties And is promising and performance all one I do not find it so by this Instance For here was a great matter promised and nothing performed It is true the Catechism saith Faith and Repentance are required of them that are to be baptized which supposeth the persons to be baptized capable of performing these things themselves And then comes a Question by way of objection why then are Infants baptized c. to which the sense of the Answer is that although by reason of their Age they are uncapable of performing the Acts of Repentance and Believing yet the Church doth allow Sureties to enter into Covenant for them which doth imply a Promise on their parts for the Children and an obligation lying on them to perform what was then promised And now let the Reader judge since this horrible Secret is come out whether this ought to be ranked in an equal degree as to the justifying Separation with the monstrous absurd and unreasonable doctrines of the Roman Church And I know nothing can do them greater Service than such Parallels as these 2. We charge them with those Reasons for Separation which the Scripture allows such as Idolatry perverting the Gospel and Institutions of Christ and Tyranny over the Consciences of men in making those things necessary to salvation which Christ never made so But not one of these can with any appearance of Reason be charged on the Church of England since we profess to give Religious Worship only to God we worship no Images we invocate no Sains we adore no Host we creep to no Crucifix we kiss no Relicks We equal no traditions with the Gospel we lock it not up from the People in an unknown language we preach no other terms of salvation than Christ and his Apostles did we set up no Monarchy in the Church to undermine Christs and to dispence with his Laws and Institutions We mangle no Sacraments nor pretend to know what makes more for the honour of his Blood than he did himself We pretend to no skill in expiating mens sins when they are dead nor in turning the bottomless pit into the Pains of Purgatory by a charm of words and a
quick motion of the hand We do not cheat mens souls with false bills of exchange called Indulgences nor give out that we have the Treasure of the Church in our keeping which we can apply as we see occasion We use no pious frauds to delude the People nor pretend to be infallible as they do when they have a mind to deceive These are things which the Divines of our Church have with great clearness and strength of Reason made good against the Church of Rome and since they cannot be objected against our Church with what face can men suppose the cases of those who separate from each of them to be parallel 3. As to the Ceremonies in the Roman Church and ours there are these considerable differences 1. They have a mighty number as appears by their Rituals and Ceremonials and the great volums written in explication of them we very few and those so very easie and plain that it requires as great skill not to understand ours as it doth to understand theirs 2. They place great holiness in theirs as appears by the Forms of consecration of their Water Oyle Salt Wax Vestments c. but we allow none of these but only the use of certain ceremonies without any preceding Act of the Church importing any peculiar holiness attributed to them 3. They suppose great vertue and efficacy to be in them for the purging away some sorts of sins we utterly deny any such thing to belong to our ceremonies but declare that they are appointed only for Order and Deceny 4. They make their ceremonies being appointed by the Church to become necessary parts of Divine Worship as I have already proved but our Church looks upon them even when determined as things in their own nature indifferent but only required by vertue of that general obedience which we owe to lawful Authority So that as to ceremonies themselves there is a vast disparity between the Roman Church and ours and no man can pretend otherwise that is not either grosly ignorant or doth not wilfully misunderstand the state of the Controversie between them and us Thus I have gone through all the Pleas for the present Separation I could meet with in the Books of my Answerers and I have not concealed the force or strength I saw in any of them And however Mr. A. reproaches me with having a notable talent of misrepresenting my Adversaries a thing which I have alwayes abhorred and never did it wilfully in my life it appearing to me an act of injustice as well as disingenuity yet I do assure him I have endeavoured to understand them truly and to represent them fairly and to judge impartially And although I make no such appeals to the day of Iudgement as others do yet I cannot but declare to the world as one that believes a day of Judgement to come that upon the most diligent search and careful Inquiry I could make into this matter I cannot find any Plea sufficient to justifie in point of conscience the present Separation from the Church of England Monseigneur DEux voyages que j'ay été obligè de faire m'ont empéché de répondre aussi tost que je l'aurois souhaitè a la lettre dont Vôtre Grandeur m'a fait la grace de m'honorer Comme j'étois sur le point de vous en faire des excuses Monsieur de L' Angle est arrivè en ceste ville quime les a fait encor differer dans l'esperance qu' il voudroit bien se charger de ma reponse qu' elle pourroit par ce moien vous étre plus fidellement rendue Il est vray Monsieur que si j'en croyois mon déplaisir je la remettrois encor a une autre fois car je ne peux vous ecrire sans un extreme douleur quand je songe a la matiere surla quelle vous me commandés de vous dire mon sentiment Ie croy que vous le sçavés dejá bien et que vous ne me faites pas l'honneur de me le demander comme en ayant quelque sorte de doute vous me faites plus de justice que cela vous ne me comprenéz pas au nombre de ceux qui ont touchant l ' Eglise d' Angleterre une si mechante opinion Pour moy je n'en avois pas une si mechante d'aucun veritable Anglois je ne pouvois pas me persuader qu' il y en eut un seul qui crût qu'on ne peut éstre dans sa communion sans hasarder son propre salut Pour ceux qui sont engagés dans le parti de l' Eglise Romaine j'en jugeois tout autrement Ils ont des maximes particuliers agissent par d'autres Interests Mais pour ceux qui n'ont aucune liaison avec Rome c'est une chose bien singuliere de les voir passer jusqu ' a cette extremitè que de croire que dans l' Eglise Anglicane on ne peut faire son salut C'est n'avoir gueres de conoissance de la Confession defoy que tout le monde Protestant a si hautement approuveé qui merite en effect les louanges de tout ce qu'il y a de bons Chrestiens Car on ne pouvoit rien faire de plus sage que cette Confession jamais les articles de foy n'ont eté recueillis avec un discernment plus juste plus raisonnable que dans cette excellentâ— piece On a raison de la garder avec tant de veneration dans la Bibliotheque d' Oxford le grand Iuellus pour l'avoir si dignement defendüe est digne d'une louange immortelle C'est d'elle dont Dieu se servit dans le commencement de la Reformation d' Angleterre si elle n'avoit pas été comme son ouvrage il ne l'auroit pas benit d'une façon si avantageuse Le succes qu' elle out devroit fermer la bouche a ceux qui sont les plus animés l'avoir veue trionpher de tant d' Obstacles devroit faire reconnoitre a tout le monde que dieu s'est declarè en sa faveur qu'il est visiblement mélé de son établissement qu'elle a la verité la fermeté de sa parole a qui elle doibt en effect sa naissance son origine Elle est aujourdhuy ce qu'elle ètoit quand elle â—toit formeé on ne peut pas reprocher a Messieurs les Evéques qu'ils y ayent depuis cette terme lá apporté quelque changement Et comment donc s'imaginer qu'elle ayt changé d'usage peut on rien voir de plus inique que de dire qu'un Instrument que Dieu employa autrefois pour l'instruction de tant de gens de bien pour le salut de de tant de peuples pour la
qui ne vouloient point de communion avec ceux qui avoient esté ordines par des Evéques laches qui s'imaginoient que leur societé étoit la veritable Eglise l'épouse bien aimée qui paissoit son troupeau vers le midi Entre eux ceux de la communion Romaine qui ont si bonne opinion de leur Eglise que hors d'elle ils ne s'imaginent pas qu'un puisse jamais acquerir le Salut Pour moy quelque enclin que je sois a la tolerance je ne pourois pourtant me persuader qu'il en faille avoir pour ceux qui en ont si peu pour les autres que s'ils étoient les maitres feroient assurement un mauvais quartiér a ceux qui dependroient d'eux Ie regarde ces gens lá comme de perturbateurs de l'Estat de l'Eglise qui sont infalliblement animés d'un esprit de sedition I'ay méme de la paine a croire qu'ils soient justement ce qu'ils disent estre je craindrois bien que sous ces Docteurs il n'y eust des ennemis tres dangereux qui fussent cachés Des Societés composées detelles personnes seroient extrement perilleuses on ne les pourroit soufrir sans ouvrir la porte au disordre travailler asa propre ruine Ily en a de composées de personnes plus raisonnables Mais j'y voudrois qu'elles le fussent assez pour ne se point separer de celles qui composent l' Eglise Anglicane particulierement au terme ou nous sommes elles devroient tout faire pour une bonne Reconciliation dans le conjuncture des affaires presentes ils devroient bien s'aperçevoir qu'il n'y a qu'une bonne reunion qui puisse prevenir les maux dont l'Angleterre est menacée Car pour dire la verité je ne voi pas que leue Meetings soient de fort grande utilité qu'on puisse s'y consoler davantage que dans les Eglises Episcopales Quand j'estois a Londres il y a bien tost cinq ans je me trouvay en plusieurs assemblées particulieres pour voir comme on l'y prenoit pour l'instruction du peuple la predication de la parole de Dieu Mais j'avoue que je â—'en receus aucune edification I'entendis un de plus fameux Non-conformistes Il pre-choit en vn lieu ou il y avoit trois hommes soissante ou quatre vingt â—emmes Il avoit choisi un texte touchant le restablissement des ruines de Ierusalem pour l'expliquer il cita cent fois Plinie Vitruve n'oublia pas de dire en Italien ce proverbe duro con duro non fa muro Tout cela me parut hors de propos fort peu a propos pour des femmelettes tres eloigné d'un esprit qui ne cherche que la consolation l'edification de ses auditeurs Se Cantonner faire un schisme pour avoir la liberté de debiter de telles vanitâ—s est une fort mâ—â—vaise conduite les peuples paroissent bien â—â—ibles de quitter leur mutuelles assemblées pour de choses qui mâ—ritent â—i peu leur estime leur preference Ie n'estime pas qu'on soit en obligation de souffrir ce dereglement Il est vray qu'autrefois on souffroit les Assemblées de Novatiens á Rome à Constantinople que le Donatistes a voient en la premiere place quelque sorte de liberté Mais c'estoit les Estrangers cela méme ne dura pas long temps comme il'y en avoit peu cela ne tiroit pas en consequence Mais c'est un autre fait en Angleterre comme le bien de l' Estat de l' Eglise depend absolument de l'union du peuple sur le poinct de la Religion on n'y pourroit trop presser une union universelle Mais il la faut procurer par les bonnes voyes comme Messieurs les Evéques sont de personnes d'une grande experience d'un Scavoir extraordinaire d'un zele d'une bonté envers leur peuples veritablement paternelle j'espere qu'ils s'employeront a câ—grand Oâ—rage avec toute la prudence la charitè qui sâ—nt necessâ—ires pour faire reüssir une si louable entreprise t'ous particulierement Monseigneur dont la moderation la capacité sont reconnües de tout le mâ—nde il semble que 〈◊〉 soit un dessein reservé pour votre grande Sagâ—sse 〈◊〉 vous n'y reuscistes pas apparemment que tous les autres ' y travailleront inutilement Pour mor je re 〈◊〉 â—â—â—tribuer d'icy que de voâ—us que de prâ—res 〈◊〉 bien protester que j'en fais tous les jours de fâ—â—r sinceres pour la prosperité de 〈…〉 qu'il plaise a Dieu faire en sorte que tous les Protestants d'Angleterre ne soyent a l'avenir qu'un coeur qu'une Ame. Ie prie Vostre Grandeur d'en estre bien persuadé de croire qu'il n'est pas possible d'estre avec plus de respect que je le suis A Leyden 3 Septemb 1680. Monseigneur Votre tres humble tres Obeissant Serviteur Le Moyne First Letter A Letter from Monsieur le Moyne Professor of Divinity at Leyden to my Lord Bishop of London concerning the nature of our present Differences and the unlawfulness of Separation from the Church of England My Lord TWo Journeys that I have been obliged to take have hindered me from answering the Letter with which your Lordship did me the favour to honour me so soon as I could have wished Just as I was about to excuse my self to you for it Monsieur de l' Angle came to this Town which made me defer it longer yet in hopes that he would charge himself with my answer and that by that means it might be brought unto you more safely It is true my Lord that if I should hearken to my own unwillingness I should put it off still to another time for I cannot write unto you without being extreamly grieved when I think upon the matter of which you command me to tell you my opinion I believe that you know it already and that you do not do me the honour to ask it of me as if you had any kind of doubt of it You do me more right than so and you do not account me of the number of those that have so ill an opinion of the Church of England For my part I had not so bad a one of any true English-man and I could not have perswaded my self that there had been so much as one which had believed that a man could not be of her communion without hazarding his own salvation For those that are engaged in
divide rashly from her as they do Is not this to divide from all the antient Churches from all the Churches of the East from all the Protestant Churches which have alwayes had a very great respect for the purity of that of England Is it not horrible impudence to excommunicate her without mercy and to make themselves believe strangely of her for them to imagine that they are the only men in England nay in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and to hold the truths necessary to salvation as they ought to be held Indeed one might make a very odious Parallel betwixt these Teachers and Pope Victor that would needs excommunicate the Churches of Asia because they did not celebrate the Feast of Easter the same day they did at Rome Betwixt them and the Audeans that divided from the Christians and would not endure rich Bishops Betwixt them and the Donatists that would have no communion with them that had been ordained by lapsed Bishops and imagined that their Society was the true Church and the well beloved Spouse that fed her flock in the South Betwixt them and those of the Roman Communion who have so good an opinion of their own Church that out of her they do not imagine that any one can ever be saved For my part as much inclined to Toleration as I am I cannot for all this perswade my self that it ought to be allowed to those that have so little of it for other men and who if they were Masters would certainly give but bad quarter to those that depended upon them I look upon these men as disturbers of the State and Church and who are doubtlesly animated by a Spirit of Sedition Nay I can scarce believe that they are just such as they say they are and I should be something afraid that very dangerous enemies might be hid under colour of these Teachers Societies composed of such persons would be extream dangerous and they could not be suffered without opening the Gate to disorder and advancing towards ones own ruine There are some of these that are composed of more reasonable men but I could wish they were reasonable enough not to separate from those of which the Church of England is composed Especially in the case we are in they should do all for a good agreement and in the present conjuncture of affairs they should understand that there is nothing but a good re-union that can prevent the evils with which England is threatned For to speak the truth I do not see that their Meetings are of any great use or that one may be more comforted there than in the Episcopal Churches When I was at London almost Five years ago I went to several of their private assemblies to see what way they took for the instruction of the people and the preaching of the Word of God But I profess I was not at all edified by it I heard one of the most famous Non-Conformists he preached in a place where there were three men and three or fourscore women he had chosen a Text about the building up the Ruines of Ierusalem and for the explication of it he cited Pliny and Vitruvius a hundred times and did not forget to mention a Proverb in Italian Duro con duro non fa muro All this seem'd to me nothing to the purpose and very improper for the poor women and very far from a Spirit that sought nothing but the comfort and edification of his hearers To cantonize themselves and make a Schism to have the liberty to vent such vanities is very ill conduct and the people seem very weak to quit their mutual Assemblies for things that so little deserve their esteem and preference I do not think that any one is obliged to suffer this irregularity It is true that the Assemblies of the Novatians were sometimes suffered at Rome and Constantinople and that even the Donatists had some kind of liberty in the first of these places But they were only strangers and that neither did not indure any long time and as there were but few of them that is not to be drawn into example But it is another case in England and seeing the good of the State and Church depends absolutely upon the union of the people in the point of Religion one cannot there press an universal union too much But it ought to be procured by good means and since the Bishops are persons of great experience of an extraordinary knowledge of a true fatherly zeal and goodness towards their people I hope that they will employ themselves in this great work with all the prudence and charity that are necessary to the succeeding of such a commendable undertaking You particularly My Lord whose moderation and capacity are acknowledged by all the World it looks as if it were a design reserved for your great Wisdom and if you do not succeed it is clear that all others will labour in it but in vain For my part I can contribute nothing to it where I am but Vowes and Prayers and of these I can protest that I make very sincere ones every day for the prosperity of the English Church and that it would please God to order things in such manner that all the Protestants of England for the future might be of one heart and of one soul. I beg your Lordship to be well assured of this and to believe that it is impossible to be with more respect than I am Leyden Sept. 3. 1680. My Lord Your most Humble and most Obedient servant Le Moyne A Paris l' 32. d'Octob Monseigneur RIen ne vous a deu paroistre si estrange ny si incivil que mon silence sur la lettre que vous me fîstes l'honneur de m'escrire il y a environ trois mois Il est pourtant vray que je n'ay rien a me reprocher sur cela a fin que vous le croyiez comme moy vous voulez bien me permettre de vous dire comment la chose s'est passée Quand on m'apporta vostre lettre j'estois retombé dans une grande violente fiebvre dont Dieu m'a affligé durant quatre ou cinq mois qui m'a mené jusqu'a deux doits de la mort Ie priay un de mes amis qui estoit alors dans ma chambre de l'ouvrir de me dire le nom de celuy qui me l'escrivoit mais il se trouva que vous aviez oublié de la signer sur quoy je me l'a fis apporter pour voir si je n'en connoistrois point le caractére Et ce fut encore inutilement par ce que jusqu'alors je n' avois rien veu de vostre main Cela me fit croire qu'elle avoit esté escrite par celuy lá mesme qui l'avoit apportée pour m'attrapper dix ou douze sous de port car ce petit stratageme est assez commun en
way faulty yet I cannot choose but be something ashamed But to come to the contents of your Letter I cannot express to you with how much grief I understand that your divisions continue at a time in which there are such pressing reasons for being Reunited Above all that which you tell me of writings that are at this time published to make men believe that Communion with the Church of England is unlawful and that the Ministers cannot permit it to private persons without sinning seems to me a thing so unreasonable in it self and so very unseasonable now that I should scarce believe it if it were not attested by a person of your merit and consideration My Lord you know well what my sentiments are and always have been in this matter and the way which I used two years ago when I was in England in frequenting your assemblies and preaching too in a Congregation that is under the jurisdiction of the Church of England sufficiently shews that I am very far from believing that her Communion is unlawful And this also proves very evidently that my opinion in this matter is the same that is holden by our Churches because it is not imaginable that I would without any necessity have done a thing which would have drawn the displeasure of my Brethren upon me and which at my return would have exposed my self to be blamed if not to be censured by them My Lord I would to God that all the mistaken Christians that are in the world would receive your Reformation I would with all my heart spend all the blood I have to procure them so great a good And I am sure with what an exceeding Joy our Churches would enter into their Communion if being pure in their opinions for Doctrine they differed no more from us than by Surplices and innocent Ceremonies and some diversity of Orders in the Government of the Church And by this my Lord you may perceive what I have to answer to your second question For since the Church of England is a true Church of our Lord since her Worship and Doctrines are pure and have nothing in them contrary to the word of God and since that when the Reformation was there received it was received together with Episcopacy and with the establishment of the Liturgy and Ceremonies which are there in use at this day it is without doubt the duty of all the Reformed of your Realm to keep themselves inseparably united to the Church And those that do not do this upon pretence that they should desire more simplicity in that Ceremonies and less of inequality among the Ministers do certainly commit a very great sin For Schism is the most formidable evil that can befal the Church and for the avoiding of this Christian charity obliges all good men to bear with their Brethren in some things much less tolerable than those of which the dispute is ought to seem even in the eyes of those that have the most aversion for them And this was so much the opinion of our great and excellent Calvin that in his Treatise of the necessity of the Reformation he makes no difficulty to say That if there should be any so unreasonable as to refuse the Communion of a Church that was pure in its Worship and Doctrine and not to submit himself with respect to its Government under pretence that it had retained an Episcopacy qualified as yours is there would be no Censure nor rigour of Discipline that ought not to be exercised upon them Talem nobis Hierarchiam si exhibeant in qua sic emineant Episcopi ut Christo subesse non recusent ut ab illo tanquam ab unico Capite pendeant et ad ipsum referantur in qua sic inter se fraternam societatem colant ut non alio modo quam ejus veritate sint colligati tum vero nullo non Anathemate dignos fatear si qui erunt qui non eum revereantur summaque obedientia observent And Beza himself who did not in the general approve of the Episcopal Government makes such a distinction of yours and is so far from believing that one may or that one ought to take occasion from thence to separate from your Church that he prays earnestly to God that she may always remain in that happy estate in which she had been put and preserved by the blood by the purity of the Faith and by the wise conduct of her excellent Bishops Quod si nunc Anglicana Ecclesia instaurata suorum Episcoporum et Archiepiscoporum authoritate persistat quemadmodum hoc nostrâ memoriâ contigit ut ejus ordinis homines non tantum insignes Dei Martyres sed etiam praestantissimos Pastores et Doctores habuerit frautur sane istâ singulari Dei beneficentiâ quae utinam illi sit perpetua But my Lord although the first Authors of the Separation which troubles you be extraordinarily to blame and though those that continue it and strengthen it by their unreasonable and passionate Writings be extreamly so too it is certain yet that among the multitude that follows them there is a very great number of good-men whose faith is pure and whose piety is sincere and who remain separate from you only because their simplicity is surprized and because they have been frightned with the bugbear words of Tyranny Oppression Limbs of Antichrist which are continually beaten into their ears I rank these with those weak ones who said they were not of the Body and of whom St. Paul said they were of the Body for all that And it seems to me that the good and charitable Bishops such as you ought to say of them though in something a different sense as Optatus Milevitanus said of the Donatists of his time Si Collegium Episcopale nolunt nobiscum habere tamen Fraâ—res sunt In the name of God then my Lord do all that possibly you can to bring them back to their duty by sweetness and charity which is only able to do great things on these occasions For men who have always something of pride do commonly oppose every thing that seems to them to act by bare Authority only but they scarce ever fail to yield themselves up to forbearance and condescension Mansuetus homo cordis est medicus I do not pretend My Lord to thrust my self in to give you any particular advice in this case you that see things near at hand and that have a heart deeply affected with Christian Charity will judge better than any man what remedies are the most proper for so great an evil and I am sure that if there were nothing wanting to cure it but the a staining from some expressions the quitting some Ceremonies and the changing the colour of some habits you would resolve to do that and something more difficult than that with great pleasure And I think I have read in some part of the Vindiciae of Mr â—ean of Windsor that these were the
charitable sentiments which the Church of England declared by the mouth of three or four of her Bishops in a Conference that was held concerning the means of re-union the first year that his Majesty was restored and that nothing hindered the matter from going farther but some of those Ministers they call Presbyterians However it be I pray God with all my heart that he would open the eyes of the one to make them see the weakness of the reasons upon which they ground such an afflicting Separation and that he would preserve and increase more and more in the other that piety that zeal and that charity which they have need of for the happy proceeding to a re-union which will rejoice men and Angels and bring down a thousand blessings of Heaven and Earth upon those that shall contribute the most unto it And I assure you My Lord I should be 〈◊〉 â—â—mpt at all Comfort if I should see that some new 〈◊〉 least were not made for the success of a 〈…〉 so holy and of such consequence in a time 〈…〉 to me so proper for it For besides that the interest of your State and Church do require it in such an extraordinary manner I hear that by a wonderful blessing of Heaven all your Episcopal Sees are filled at this time with excellent servants of God who love Iesus Christ and his Church and who have all the qualities of the head and the heart which are necessary to make them able and willing to contribute to this good work And to judge of it by you My Lord and My Lord Arch-bishop of Canterbury and My Lord Bishop of Oxford whom I had the honour to see during my stay in England I am easily perswaded of it But I am afraid I have tired you with this long Letter I humbly beg your pardon for it and I beseech you to be very well assured that I alwayes preserve a very grateful acknowledgement of the Friendship with which you honour me and that I am with all the respect that I owe My Lord Your most Humble and most Obedient Servant De L' Angle Mons. Claude my excellent Collegue to whom I have shewed this Letter has prayed me to tell you with assurance of his most humble service that he would subscribe this with all his heart and that he is absolutely of my Opinion The Third Letter from Monsieur Claude on the same Subject A Paris 29. Novemb. Stilo Novo Monseigneur MOnsieur de l' Angle m'ayaut rendu la Lettre qu'il vous a plû m'écrire j'ay esté surpris d'y voir que vous m'aviez fait l'honneur de m'en écrire une autre que je n'ay point receüe à laquelle je n'eusse pas manquè de faire réponse Vous me faites beaucoup d'honneur de vouloir bien que je vous dise ma pensée sur le different qui vous trouble depuis long-tems entre ceux qu'on appelle Episcopaux ceux qu'on nomme Presbyteriens Quoy que je m'en sois deja diverses fois expliquè par des Lettres que j'ay faites sur ce sujet à plusieurs personnes dans mon livre mesme de la Defense de la Reformation où parlant de la distinction de l' Evesque du Prestre j'ay dit formellement que je ne blame pas ceux qui l'observent comme une chose fort ancienne que je ne voudrois pas qu'on s'en fist un sujet de querelle dans les lieux où elle se trouve établie pag. 366. quoy que d'ailleurs je me connoisse assez pour ne pas croire que mon sentiment doive estre fort considerè je ne laisseray pas de vous temoigner dans cette occasion comme je feray toujours en toute autre mon estime Chretienne mon respect mon obeissance C'est ce que je feray d'autant plus que je ne vous diray pas simplement ma pensée particuliere mais le sentiment du general de nos Eglises Premierement donc Monseigneur nous sommes si fort éloignez de croire qu'on ne puisse en bonne conscience vivre sous vostre discipline sous vostre Gouvernement Episcopal que dans nostre pratique ordinaire nous ne faisons nulle difficultè ni de donner nos chaires ni de commettre le soin de nos troupeaux à des Ministres receus ordinez par Messieurs vos Evesques comme il se pourroit justifier par un assez grand nombre d'exemples anciens recens depuis peu Mr. Duplessis ordinè par Monsieur l' Evesque de Lincoln à esté establi appellè dans une Eglise de cette Province Monsieur Wicart que vous Monseigneur avez receu au S. Ministere nous fit l'honneur il-n'y-a que quelques mois de Prescher à Charenton à l'edification universelle detout nostre troupeau Ainsi ceux qui nous imputent à cet égard des sentimens éloignez de la paix de la concorde Chretienne nous font assurement injustice Ie dis la paix la concorde Chretienne car Monseigneur nous croyons que l'obligation à conserver cette paix cette concorde fraternelle qui fait l'unité exterieure de l'eglise est d'une necessitè si indispensable que S. Paul n'a pas fait difficultè de la joindre avec l'unité interieure d'une mesme foy d'une mesme regeneration non seulement comme deux choses qui ne doivent jamais estre separées mais aussi comme deux choses dependantes l'une de l'autre parce que si l'unité exterieure est comme la fille de l'interieure elle en est aussi la conservatrice Cheminez dit il Ephes. 4. comme il est convenable à la vocation dont vous estes appellez avec toute humilitè douceur avec un esprit patient supportant l'un l'autre en charité Estant soigneux de garder l'unitè de l'esprit par la lien de la paix D'un cotè il fait dependre cette charitè fraternelle qui nous joint les uns avec les autres de nostre commune vocation de l'autre il nous enseigne qu'un des principaux moyens de conserner en son entier cette commune vocation qu'il appelle l'unitè de l'esprit est de garder entre nous la paix Selon la premiere de ces maximes nous ne pouvons avoir de paix ni de Communion Ecclesiastique avec ceux qui ont tellement degenerè de la vocation Chretienne qu'on ne peut plus reconnoitre en eux une veritable salutaire foy principalement lors qu' à des erreurs mortelles ils ajoutent la tyrannie de l'ame qu'ils voulent contraindre la conscience en imposant la necessitè de croire ce qu'ils croyent
be happy and pleasant as the Paradise of God Lastly I pray that he would preserve you my Lord in perfect and long health for his glory and the good and advantage of that great and considerable part of his field which he has given you to cultivate and which you do cultivate so happily I desire too the help of your holy prayers and the continuance of the honour of your affection protesting to you that I will be all my life with all the respect that I owe you My Lord Your most humble and most obedient Servant and Son in Iesus Christ CLAUDE FINIS A Catalogue of some Books Printed for Henry Mortclock at the Phoenix in St. Paul's Church-Yard A Rational account of the Grounds of Protestant Religion being a Vindication of the Lord Archbishop of Canterburie's Relation of a Conference c. from the pretended answer of T. C. wherein the true grounds of Faith are cleared and the false discovered the Church of England Vindicated from the Imputation of Schism and the most Important particular Controversies between us and those of the Church of Rome throughly examined The Second Edition corrected by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Sermons preached upon several occasions with a Discourse annexed concerning the True Reason of the Sufferings of Christ wherein Crellius his Answer to Grotius is considered by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Folio Irenicum A Weapon Salve for the Churches Wounds by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Quarto A Discourse concering the Idolatry Practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the communion of it in Answer to some Papers of a Revolted Protestant with a particular Account of the Fanaticism and Divisions of that Church by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Octavo An Answer to several Late Treatises occasioned by a Book entituled a Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome and the hazard of Salvation in the Communion of it by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. the first part Octavo A second Discourse in vindication of the Protestant Grounds of Faith against the pretence of Infallibility in the Rom. Church in Answer to the Guide in Controversies by R. H. Protestancy without Principles and Reason and Religion or the certain Rule of Faith by E. W. with a particular enquiry into the Miracles of the Roman Church by Edw. Stillingflect D. D. Octavo A Defence of the Discourse concerning the Idolatry practised in the Church of Rome in Answer to a Book cutituled Catholicks no Idolaters by Edw. Stillingfleet D. D. Dean of S. Paul's and Chaplain in Ordinary to His Majesty THE END Arch-Bishop Whitgift's Defence of the Answer to the Admonition p. 423. Life of Bishop Jewel before his Works n. 34. Vita Juelli per Humâ—red p. 255. Preface to 2d Vol. of Serm. Sect. 11. Preface to the First Volume Sect. 18. Acts and Monuments Tom. 3. p. 171. Foxes and Firebrands 1680. Church History l. 1. p. 81. History of Presbyter l. 6. p. 257. Annales Elizabethae A. D. 1568. V. Thom. à Iesu de natura divinae Orationis Defence of the Answer p. 605. Page 55. Fair warning second Part Printed by H. March 1663. Contzen Politic l. 2. c. 18 Sect. 6 Sect. 9. Coleman's Trâ—al p. 101 Vindiciae libertatis Evangelii Or a Iustification of our present Indulgence and acceptance of Licences 1672. p. 12. Sacrilegious desertion rebuked and Tolerated Preaching Vindicated 1672. Answer to Sacrileg desert p. 171. 1672. Page 71. Page 72. Page 32. Page 250. Preface to the Defence of the Cure p. 17. Defence of the Cure of Divisions introduction p. 52 c. Sacrilegious desertion p. 103 104. Defence of the Cure p. 53. Dr. O. Vindication p. 4. Letter out of the Country p. 7. Pagâ— 4. Mischief of Impos end of the Preface Preface p. 11 13. Page 15. Mischief of Imposition Preface towards the end Christian Direct Cases Eccles. p. 49. Defence of Cure of Divis Introd p. 55. Ib. p. 88. Arch-Bishop Whitgift ' s Defence c. p. 423. Several Conferences p. 258 c. Orig. Sucr l. 2. ch 8. p. 220. Orig. Sacr. p. 367 368. Papers for Accommodation p. 51. Answer to R. Williams p. 129. Irenic p. 123. Page 5. Page 6 7. Page 8. Co. Iast 4. Part. 323 324. Acts and Monuments Vol. 3. p. 131. Mischief of Impositions Preface Fresh suit against Ceremonies p. 467. Pet. Martyr Epist. Theolog Hoopero Buc. r. Script Anglic. p. 708. Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 319. Ridiey's Articles of Visitation 1550. Vindicat. of Nonconf p. 13. P. 35. 37. Iacob's Answer to Iohnson p. 20 21. Iohnson's Defence of his ninth Reason Bradford's Confer with the Bâ— Acts and Mon. Vol. 3. p. 298. Iacob ' s Answer p. 82. Letters of the Martyrs p. 50. Plea for Peace p. 1â—0 Page 19. Page 21. Calvin Ep. 164. Ep. 55. Ep. 165. Tr. of Fr. p. 30. Page 31. Letters of the Martyrs p. 60. Bonavent 〈◊〉 Ps. 21. Angel Roecha de Sollâ—â—i Communione Summi Pontificis p. 33. 38. Calvin Epist. ad Sadolet De verâ Eccl. Reformatione c. 16. â—â—â—olamp Epist. f. 17. Bucer Scriâ—t â—â—gl p. 479. Dialogue between a Soldier of Barwick and a-English Chaplain p. 5 6. Beza Epist. 23. Part of a Register p. 23. Beza Epist. 24. p 148. Gualter Ep. ded ad Hom. in 1 Ep. ad Câ—rinth Zanchii Epist l. 2. p. 391. See his Letter in Fullers Church-History l. 9. p. â—06 Bullinger Ep. ad Robert Winton in the Appendix to Bishop Whitgifts first Book Parker on the Cross Part. 2. cap. 9. Sect. 2. Vide Profane Schism of the Brownists Ch. 12. Giffords first Treatise against the Donatists of England Preface Gifford's Second Treatise Preface Answer to Giffords Preface Dangerous Positions c. l. 3. c. 5. The Second Answer for Communicating p. 20. Printed by John Windet A. D. 1588. Page 46. Answer to Ainsworth p. 13. Page 57. Preface to the Readâ—r p. 17. Brownists Apology p. 7. A. D. 1604. A Defence of the Churches and Ministry of England Middleburgh p. 3. A. D. 1599. Barrow's Observations on Gifford's last Reply n. 4. p. 240. Brownists Apol. p. 92. Brownists Apology p 7. Barrow ib. Barrow's Refutation of Giffard Preface to the Reader Sum of the Causes of Separation Ibid. Brownists Apology p. 7 8 9. Ainsworth's Counter-poyson p. 3. Ib. p. 87. T. Cs. Letter to Harrison against Separation in Defence of the Admonition to the followers of Brown p. 98 99. Page 106. Page 107. Page 91. Counterpoyson p. 117. Ball against Can p. 77. Giffard's Answer to the Brownists p. 55. Grave Confutation c. p. 9 10 11. â—ravâ—conâ—utation c. â— 12 13 15. Ibid. Pall against Can. Part. 2. p. 8. Giffard's Plain Declaration c. Preface Answ. to the Brown p. 10 11. Mr. Arthur Hildershams Letter against Separation Sect. 2. highly commended by Mr. J. Cotton in his Preface before his Commentaries on 4 John Iâ— Sect. C 7 8. V. Bradshaw's Answer to Johnson Hildershams Letter Sect. 3. Grave Confutation
fab l 3. 5. Epiph. haer 59. Cyprian de Vnit. Eccl. n. 11 12 c. Epiph. haer 68. Theod. l. 1. c. 9. Epiph. haer 70. Sect. 15. Rector of Sutton c. p. 42. Cotton 's Answer to R. Williams p. 121. Mischief of Imposit in the Preface Aug. c. Ep. Parmen l. 1. c. 7. l. 2. c. 1 3 11. l. 3. c. 1. De bapt c. Donat. l. 2. c. Crescon l. 2. c. 14. Aug. Ep. 43. 51. Colâ— at 3. Carthag n. 258. Mischief of Imposiâ—ions in the Preface Collat. 3. Carthag n. 258. Aug 〈…〉 â—6 C. Parmen l. 1. c. 5. l. 2. c. 18. Cure of Divisions Direct 7. Defence of the Cure p. 3. Christian Direâ—tory p. 739 c. Mâ—schief of Impos Sect. 1. Christian Directory p. 741. Defence of his Cure 2 Except p 6. Heb. 10. 25. Act. 2. 42. 1 Cor. 10. 17. 1 Cor 12. 13. Ephes. 4. 3 4 5. Johâ— 17. 21. Iren. l. 4. c. 62. Chrysost in Eph. 4. p. â—22 1 Cor. 10. 6. 14. 1 St. John 5. Matt. 4. 19. 2 Cor. 6. 17. Heb. 13. 7. 17. 1 Thess. 5. 12. 13. Gal. 1. 6. 7. 8. Tit. 3. 10. 2 John 10. Revel 2. 6. 15. Aâ—t 15. 2. Phil. 3. 3. Rom. 14. 2 〈…〉 18 19. 1 Cor. 5. 11. Vers. 12. 13 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 p. 37. Serm. p. 26. Vindic p. 41. Cotton's way of Congregatiâ—nal Churches cleared p. 98 99. Cyprian l. 5. Ep. 2. in the late Edit Ep. 5. L. 4. 10. Ep. 35. L. 5. Ep. 3. Ep. 28. L. 3. Ep. 22. Ep. 24. Ep. 40. Euseb. l. 6. c. 35. Phot. Nomo-Can tit 1. c. 30. L. 3. Ep. 5. Ep. 15. L. 3. 15. Ep. 11. L. 3. Ep. 14. Ep. 10. L. 3. Ep. 15. Ep. 11. L. 3. Ep. 10. Ep. 12. Ep. 21. Ep. 22. Ep. 25. Ep. 26. Ep. 28. Ep. 30. Ep. 31. Ep. 33. Ep. 34. Ep. 35. Ep. 38. Ep. 39. Ep. 27. Ep. 52. Ep. 55. Ep. 65. Ep. 69. Ep. 75. Moses and Aaron p. 62. Vindic. p. 39. Act. 9. 31. 1 Thess. 2. 14. 1 Cor. 16. 19. Act. 15. 41. 1 Cor. 16. 1. Gal. 1. 2. 2 Cor. 8. 1. Act. 20. 19. 31. 1 Cor. 16. 9. Vindic. p. 40. p. 4â— Orig. c. Cels. l. 3. Act. 18. 11. Act. 20. 31. Sâ—t l. 8. Thucyd. l. 4. l. 8. p. 41. Act. 4. 4. Sâ—â— l. 9. Eustar ad Il. â— Euseb. l. 3. c. 5. Epiph. haer 29. p. 42. Evangel Love p. 59. p. 65. p. 43. p. 44. Reasons against the Instances c. p. 83. p. 46. p. 24. True and onely way of Concord p III. Premonition to the true way of Concord Plea for peace p. 66. Church-History p. 37. p. 73. Church-History p. 57. Answ. to Serm. p. 74. Aug. de Bapt. l. 2. c. 4. Cypt. Ep. 52. n. 4. Cypr. Ep. 55. n. 6 9. Ep. 46. n. 3. Ep. 58. n. 2. De Vnit. Eccl. n. 3 4. S. August Ep. 162. N. E. Ep. 43. Collat. Carthage 1. Aug. Ep. 43. Victor Vitens l. 1. a Aug. Serm. 4. 14. 102. de diversis b Serm. 12. 122. de diversis c De divers 11. d 96. de Temp. * Vict. l. 1. f 110. de Temp. g 251. de Temp. h 24. de divers Victor Vit. l. 5. Collat. 1. Carthage n. 139. Optat. l. 6. Cod. Eccl. Afric c. 71. c. 98 99. c. 117. c. 118. c. 121. Church History p. 73. De Curd pro Mortuis c. 12. Aug. Ep. 60. Aug. Ep. 203. Ep. 204. Ep. 262. Ep. ad Quodvultdeum ante lib. de haeres S. Cyprian Ep. 52. n. 13. Ep. 23. n. 2. Ep. 45. n. 2. Victor Vit. l. 1. Epiph. haer 68. n. 6. Athanas. Ap. p. 781. 802. Haeres 68. n. 4. 69. n. 1. Abridgment of Chur. hist. p. 9. Athanas. Ap. p. 682. Euseb. l. 7. c. 21. Vetus Orbis descript p. 18. Amm. Marc. l. 22. Euseb. l. 7. c. 11. Athan. Apol. p. 683. Theodor. Ep. 113. Treatise of Episcopacy p. 67. Critic Sacr. l. 4. c. 21. Theod. Ep. 116. Ep. 117. Sirmond Praef. ad Theod. Opera Ptolem. l. 5. c. 15. Strab. l. 16. Plin. l. 5. c. 24. Amm. Marcel l. 14. Notitiae Antiq Append. ad Car. à S. Paulo p. 59. Theodor. Ep. 16. Theodor. Ep. 79 81. Ep. 42. Ep. 72. Religios Hist. Vit. Symeon p. 879. Ep. 81. Ep. 145. Vita Jacobi jun. p. 860. 861 c. 858 869 876 877 878 879. Treatise of Episcopacy part 2. p 49 50. Theod. Hist. l. 4. c. 19. l. 4. c. 15. l. 4. c. 19. l. 4. c. 21. l. 4. c. 2 l. 5. c. 4. Answ. to Serm. p. 73. p. 263. Christian Directory Eccles. Cases Q. 56. p. 831. Can. 31. 35. Defence of the Answer to the Admonit p. 218. p. 424. p. 427. Perpetual Government of Christ's Church ch 12. p. 224. ch 13 p. 244. Synod of new-New-England concerning the subject of Baptism c. 1662. Baxter of Confirmation p. 20. p. 49 52. p. 155. p. 172. p. 262. Rubrick before Communion Defence of the Plea p. 58. Epist. 108. Post collat c. Donat. c. 20. Spalat l. 5. c. 9. Albaspin l. 2. c. 4. Defence of the Plea p. 65 72. De Tâ—mpâ—re Serm. â—52 Of Confirmation p. 174 c. His Majesties final Answer to the Divines at Newport n. 4. Calvin Ep. 136. Bez. Ep. 20. Codex Eccles Afric c. 6 7 9 43. c. 10. c. 11. p. 5. p. 9. Plea for Peace p. 243. Answ. 10 Serm. Socr. l. 5. c. 19. Soz. l. 7. c. 16. Serm. p. 19. Vindicat. of Non-conform p. 16. p. 17. p. 17. p. 42. Williams his Answer to Cotton's Letter p. 1. Cottons Answer to R Williams p. 57. 〈…〉 p. 46. Cobbet's Answer to Claâ—ks Nâ—rrative p. 40 47. Synod of New-England p. 30. Defence of the Synod p. 1â—2 Answ. p. 31 32. Difference between the Power of the Magistrates and Church Pastâ—â—rs 1â—â—1 p. 〈◊〉 40. 〈…〉 〈…〉 p. 12 13 14. Hudson of the Church p. 15. Can. 139. Christian Directory Eccl. Cases Q. 5â— p. 830. Answer to my Sermon p. 77. Anws p 34. p. 39. Mischief of Impos p. 27. ibid. p. 29. p. 30. p. 31. Letter out of the country p. 24. p. 25. p. 26. Part 2. Rectâ—r of Sutton c. p. 2â— Vindication c. p. 3â— Answ. p. 15 16. Mischief of 〈◊〉 Preface Letter out of the Country p. 25. Vindicat. p. 37. 1 Tim. 3. 2 7 10. Act. l. 14. Act. 6. 3 5. Act. 11. 3. Act. 15. 2. 6. 12. 16. 4. 1 Tim. 3. 2 7. Act. 1â— 2. Act. 6. 3. Clement Epist. p. 54 55 56 57. Answ. p. 27. Cypr. Epist. 68. Orig. hom 6. in Levit. Euseb. de Vit. Const. l. 3. c. 59. Greg. Naz. Orat. 19. Evagr. l. 2. c. 5. Socr. l. 4. c. 14. Soz. l. 3. c. 5. Socr. l. 7. c. 26 35. Ambros. Ep. 82. Socr. l. 4. c. 30. Soz. l. 4. c. 28. Socr. l. 5. c. 9. l. 6. c. 11. Amm. Marc. l. 27. Answ. p. 15. De Sacerd. l. 3. Hieron adversus Iovin in Ezek. c. 33. Orig in Num. hom 22. Hieron Epist.