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
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
up to a persecution of them There had been some color for this if there had been the left word tending that way through the whole Sermon But this objection is generally made by those who never read the Sermon and never intend to read it and such I have found have spoken with the greatest bitterness against it They resolved to condemn it and therefore would see nothing that might have alter'd their Sentence It is enough it was Preached before the Magistrates and Judges and therefore it must be for persecution of Dissenters Noâ—e are so incapable of Conviction as those who presently determine what a thing must be without considering what it is Is it not possible for a Man to speak of Peace before Hannibal or of Obedience to Government before Julius Caesar Must one speak of nothing but Drums and Trumpets before great Generals Which is just as reasonable as to suppose that a Man cannot Preach about Dissenters before Judges and Magistrates but he must design to stir them up to the severe Execution of Laws But it is to no purpose for me to think to convince those by any Vindication who will not be at the pains to read the Sermon it self for their own satisfaction But the Dissenters themselves were not there to hear it And must we never Preach against the Papists but when they are present It seems they soon heard enough of it by the Noise and Clamor they made about it Yet still this gives advantage to the Papists for us to quarrel among our selves Would to God this advantage had never been given them And Woe be to them by whom these offences come And what must we do Must we stand still with open Arms and naked Breasts to receive all the Wounds they are willing to give us Must we suffer our selves to be run down with a Popular fury raised by Reviling Books and Pamphlets and not open our Mouths for our own Vindication lest the Papists should overhear us Which is as if the unruly Soldiers in an Army must be let alone in a Mutiny for fear the Enemy should take notice and make some advantage of it But which will be the greater advantage to him to see it spread and increase or care taken in time to suppress it If our Dissenters had not appeared more Active and busie than formerly if they had not both by publick Writings and secret Insinuations gone about to blast the Reputation of this Church and the Members of it so disingenuously as they have done there might have been some pretence for the Unseasonableness of my Sermon But when those things were notorious to say it was Unseasonable to Preach such a Sermon then or now to defend it is in effect to tell us they may say and do what they will against us at all seasons but whatever we say or do for our own Vindication is Unseasonable Which under favor seems to be little less than a State of Persecution on our side for it is like setting us in the Pillory for them to throw dirt at us without allowing us any means to defend our Selves But some complain of the too great sharpness and severity of it But Wherein doth it lie Not in raking into old Sores or looking back to the proceedings of former times Not in exposing the particular faults of some Men and laying them to the charge of the whole Party Not in sharp and provoking reflections on Mens Persons All these I purposely and with care declined My design being not to exasperate any but to perswade and argue them into a better disposition to Union by laying open the common danger we are in and the great Mischief of the present Separation But I am told by one There are severe reflections upon the sincerity and honesty of the Designs of the Non-conformists by another that indeed I do not bespeak for them Gibbets Whipping-posts and Dungeons nor directly any thing grievous to their flesh but I do not pass any gentle doom upon them in respect of their Everlasting State God forbid that I should Iudge any one among them as to their present sincerity or final condition to their own Master they must stand or fall but my business was to consider the nature and tendency of their Actions My Iudgment being that a causless breaking the Peace of the Church we live in is really as great and as dangerous a Sin as Murder and in some respects aggravated beyond it and herein having the concurrence of the Divines of greatest reputation both Ancient and Modern Would they have had me represented that as no sin which I think to be so great a one or those as not guilty whom in my Conscience I thought to be guilty of it Would they have had me suffered this Sin to have lain upon them without reproving it or Would they have had me found out all the soft and palliating considerations to have lessen'd their sense of it No I had seen too much of this already and a mighty prejudice done thereby to Men otherwise scrupulous and conscientious that seem to have lost all Sense of this Sin as if there neither were nor could be any such thing unless perhaps they should happen to quarrel among themselves in a particular Congregation Which is so mean so jejune so narrow a Notion of Schism so much short of that Care of the Churches Peace which Châ—ist hath made so great a Duty of his Followers that I cannot but wonder that Men of understanding should be satisfy'd with it unless they thought there was no other way to excuse their own actings And that I confess is a shrew'd temptation But so far as I can judge as far as the Obligation to preserve the Churches Peace extends so far doth the Sin of Schism â—each and the Obligation to preserve the Peace of the Church extends to all lawful Constitutions in order to it or else it would fall short of the Obligation to Civil Peace which is as far as is possible and as much as lies in us Therefore to break the Peace of the Church we live in for the sake of any lawful Orders and Constitutions made to preserve it is directly the Sin of Schism or an unlawful breach of the Peace of the Church And this is not to be determined by Mens fancies and present apprehensions which they call the Dictates of Conscience but upon plain and evident grounds manifesting the repugnancy of the things required to the Laws and Institutions of Christ and that they are of that importance that he allows Men rather to divide from such a Communion than joyn in the practice of such things We were in a lamentable case as to the Defence of the Reformation if we had nothing more to plead against the Impositions of the Church of Rome than they have against ours and I think it impossible to defend the lawfulness of our Separation from them if we had no better grounds to proceed upon than they
as to the Sign of the Cross as it is used in our Church notwithstanding all the noise that hath been made about its being a New Sacrament and I know not what but of this at large in the following Treatise 2 I see no ground for the Peoples separation from other Acts of Communion on the account of some Rites they suspect to be unlawful And especially when the use of such Rites is none of their own Act as the Cross in Baptism is not and when such an Explication is annexed concerning the intention of Kneeling of the Lords Supper as is in the Rubrick after the Communion 3 Notwithstanding because the use of Sacraments in a Christian Church ought to be the most free from all exceptions and they ought to be so Administred as rather to invite than discourage scrupulous Persons from joyning in them I do think it would be a part of Christian Wisdom and Condescension in the Governours of our Church to remove those Bars from a freedom in joyning in full Communion with us which may be done either by wholly taking away the Sign of the Cross or if that may give offence to others by confining the use of it to the publick administration of Baptism or by leaving it indifferent as the Parents desire it As to Kneeling at the Lords Supper since some Posture is necessary and many devout People scruple any other and the Primitive Church did in antient times receive it in the Posture of Adoration there is no Reason to take this away even in Parochial Churches provided that those who scruple Kneeling do receive it with the least offence to others and rather standing than sitting because the former is most agreeable to the practise of Antiquity and of our Neighbour Reformed Churches As to the Surplice in Parochial Churches it is not of that consequence as to bear a Dispute one way or other And as to Cathedral Churches there is no necessity of alteration But there is another thing which seems to be of late much scrupled in Baptism viz. the Use of God-fathers and God-mothers excluding the Parents Although I do not question but the Practice of our Church may be justified as I have done it towards the End of the following Treatise yet I see no necessity of adhering so strictly to the Canon herein but that a little alteration may prevent these scruples either by permitting the Parents to joyn with the Sponsors or by the Parents publickly desiring the Sponsors to represent them in offering the Child to Baptism or which seems most agreeable to Reason that the Parents offer the Child to Baptism and then the Sponsors perform the Covenanting part representing the Child and the charge after Baptism be given in common to the Parents and Sponsors These things being allowed I see no obstruction remaining as to a full Union of the Body of such Dissenters with us in all Acts of Divine Worship and Christian Communion as do not reject all Communion with us as unlawful 2. But because there are many of those who are become zealous Protestants and plead much their Communion with us in Faith and Doctrine although they cannot joyn with us in Worship because they deny the lawfulness of Liturgies and the right constitution of our Churches their case deserves some consideration whether and how far they are capable of being made serviceable to the common Interest and to the Support of the Protestant Religion among us To their Case I answer First That a general unlimited Toleration to dissenting Protestants will soon bring Confusion among us and in the end Popery as I have shewed already and a suspension of all the penal Laws that relate to Dissenters is the same thing with a boundless Toleration Secondly If any present Favours be granted to such in consideration of our circumstances and to prevent their conjunction with the Papists for a general Toleration for if ever the Papists obtain it it must be under their Name if I say such favour be thought fit to be shewed them it ought to be with such restrictions and limitations as may prevent the Mischief which may easily follow upon it For all such Meetings are a perpetual Reproach to our Churches by their declaring that our Churches are no true Churches that our Manner of Worship is unlawful and that our Church-Government is Antichristian and that on these accounts they separate from us and worship God by themselves But if such an Indulgence be thought fit to be granted I humbly offer these things to consideration 1. That none be permitted to enjoy the priviledge of it who do not declare that they do hold Communion with our Churches to be unlawful For it seems unreasonable to allow it to others and will give countenance to endless and causeless Separations 2. That all who enjoy it besides taking the Test against Popery do subscribe the 36 Articles of our Faith because the pretence of this Liberty is joyning with us in Points of Faith and this may more probably prevent Papists getting in amongst them 3. That all such as enjoy it must declare the particular Congregations they are of and enter their Names before such Commissioners as shall be authorised for that purpose that so this may be no pretence for idle loose and profane persons never going to any Church at all 4. That both Preachers and Congregations be liable to severe penalties if they use any bitter or reproachful words either in Sermons or Writings against the established Constitution of our Churches because they desire only the freedom of their own Consciences and the using this liberty will discover it is not Conscience but a turbulent factions humour which makes them separate from our Communion 5. That all indulged Persons be particularly obliged to pay all legal Duties to the Parochial Churches lest meer covetousness tempt Men to run among them and no persons so indulged be capable of any publick Office It not being reasonable that such should be trusted with Government who look upon the Worship established by Law as unlawful 6. That no other penalty be laid on such indulged persons but that of Twelve Pence a Sunday for their absence from the Parochial Churches which ought to be duly collected for the Vse of the Poor and cannot be complained of as any heavy Burden considering the Liberty they do enjoy by it 7. That the Bishops as Visitors appointed by Law have an exact Account given to them of the Rule of their Worship and Discipline and of all the persons belonging to the indulged Congregations with their Qualities and Places of Abode and that none be admitted a Member of any such Congregation without acquainting their Visitor with it that so means may be used to prevent their leaving our Communion by giving satisfaction to their scruples This Power of the Bishops cannot be scrupled by them since herein they are considered as Commissioners appointed by Law 8. That no indulged persons presume under severe penalties to breed
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
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
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
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
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-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
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-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
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
capable to receive the Inhabitants For this I find insisted on by almost all my Answerers Some Parishes saith one cannot receive a tenth part some not half the People belonging to them few can receive all The Parochial Teacher saith another is overlaid with a numerous throng of People The Parish Ministers are not near sufficient for so populous a City saith a third And yet not one of these but assignes such reasons for the necessity of Separate Congregations as would equally hold if there were never a Church in London but what would hold all the Inhabitants together This is therefore but a color and pretence and no real Cause Any one would think by Mr. Baxter's insisting so very much on the greatness and largeness of our Parishes as the Reason of his Preaching in separate Congregations this were his opinion that such Congregations are only allowable in such vast Parishes where they are helps to the Parochial Churches And no Man denies that more places for Worship are desireable and would be very useful where they may be had and the same way of Worship and Order observed in them as in our Parochial Churches where they may be under the same Inspection and Ecclesiastical Government where upon pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification the People are not drawn into Separation But is it possible that Mr. Baxter should think the case alike where the Orders of our Church are constantly neglected the Authority of the Bishops is slighted and contemned and such Meetings are kept up in affront to them and the Laws Would Mr. B. have thought this a sufficient Reason for Mr. Tombs to have set up a Meeting of Anabaptists in Kidderminster because it is a very large Parish Or for R. Williams in New-England to have set up a Separate Congregation at Boston because there were but three Churches there to receive all the numerous Inhabitants If such a number of Churches could be built as were suitable to the greatness and extent of Parishes we should be so far from opposing it that we should be very thankful to those who would accomplish so excellent a Work but in the mean time Is this just and reasonable to draw away the People who come to our Churches under the pretence of Preaching to those who cannot come For upon consideration we shall find 1. That this is Mr. Baxter's own case For if we observe him although he sometimes pretends only to Preach to some of many thousands that cannot come into the Temples many of which never heard a Sermon of many years and to this purpose he put so many Quaere 's to me concerning the largeness of Parishes and the necessity of more Assistants thereby to insinuate That what he did was only to Preach to such as could not come to our Churches yet when he is pinch'd with the point of Separation then he declares That his hearers are the same with ours at least 10 or 20 for one and that he knows not many if any who use to hear him that Separate from us If this be true as no doubt Mr. B. believes it then what such mighty help or assistance is this to our great Parishes What color or pretence is there from the largeness of them that he should Preach to the very same persons who come to our Churches And if such Meetings as theirs be only lawful in great Parishes where they Preach to some of many thousands who cannot come into the Churches Then how come they to be lawful where few or none of those many thousands ever come at all but they are filled with the very same Persons who come to our Parish Churches These two pretences then are inconsistent with each other and one of them cannot hold For if he doth Preach to those who come to our Churches and scarce to any else iâ— any as Mr. B. supposes then all the pretence from the largeâ—ess of our Parishes and the many thousands who cannot come to our Churches is vain and impertinent and to Speak Softly not becoming Mr. Baxter's sincerity 2. That if this were Mr. Baxter's own case viz. That he Preached only to such as could not come to our Churches it would be no defence of the general practice of Dissenters who express no regard at all to the greatness or smallness of Parishes As if it were necessary might be proved by an Induction of the particular Congregations within the City and in the adjacent Parishes Either those separarate Meetings are lawful or not if not Why doth not Mr. Baxter disown them if they be Why doth he pâ—etend the greatness of Parishes to justifie Separate Mâ—etings when if they were never so small they would be lawful however This therefore must be set aside as a meeâ— color and pretence which he thought plausible for himself and invidious to us though the bounds of our Parishes were neâ—ther of our own making nor is it in our power to alter them And we shall find that Mr. B. doth justifie them upon other grounds which have no relation at all to the extent of Parishes or capacity of Churches I come therefore to the real grounds which they proceed upon Sect. 3. Some do allow Communion with some Parochial Churches in some duties at some Seasons but not with all Churches in all Duties or at all times These things must be more particulary explained for a right understanding the Mystery of the present Separation Which proceeds not so openly and plainly as the old Separation did but hath such artificial windings and turnings in it that a Man thinks they are very near our Church when they are at a great distance from it If we charge them with following the steps of the old Separatists we utterly deny it for say they For they separated from your Churches as no true Churches they disowned your Ministery and Hierarchy as Antichristian and looked on your Worship as Idolatrous but we do none of these things and therefore you charge us unjustly with Separation To which I Answer 1. There are many still especially of the People who pursue the Principles of the old Separatists of whom Mr B. hath spoken very well in his Cure of Divisions and the Defence of it and elsewhere Where he complains of their Violence and Censoriousness their contempt of the Gravest and Wisest Pastors and forcing others to forsake their own judgments to comply with their humors And he saith A sinful humoring of rash Professors is as great a Temptation to them as a sinful compliance with the Great Ones of the World In another place he saith The People will not endure any Forms of Prayers among them but they declare they would be gone from them if they do use them And he doth not dissemble that they do comply with them in these remarkable words Should the Ministers in London that have suffer'd so long but use any part of the Liturgy and Scripture Forms though without
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-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
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
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
Separation from a Church wherein it is confessed there are no heinous Errors in Doctrine or Idolatrous Practice in Worship for if they be not such Separation must be a formal Schism because such persons not only withdraw from Communion with our Church but set up other Churches of their own Now the way I shall take to shew the insufficiency of these Causes of Separation shall be by shewing the great Absurdities that follow upon the allowance of them These Five especially I shall insist upon 1. That it weakens the Cause of the Reformation 2. That it hinders all Vnion between the Protestant-Churches 3. That it justifies the antient Schism's which have been always condemned by the Christian Church 4. That it makes Separation endless 5. That it is contrary to the Obligation which lies on all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church Sect. 22. 1. The prejudice it brings upon the Cause of the Reformation Which I shall make appear not from the Testimonies of our own Writers who may be suspected by the Dissenters of too much kindness to our Church but from the most eminent and learned Defenders of the Reformation in France who can be the least suspected of partiality to our Church I begin with Calvin against whom I hope no exceptions will be taken 1. In the General He assigns two marks of the Visible Church the Word of God truly Preached and Sacraments administred according to Christ's Institution 2. He saith Wherever these Marks are to be found in particular Societies those are true Churches howsoever they are distributed according to humane conveniencies 3 That although those stand as Members of particular Churches who may not be thought worthy of that Society till they are duly cast out yet the Churches themselves having these Marks do still retain the true Nature and Constitution of Churches and ought to be so esteemed 4. Men ought not to Separate from or break the Vnity of such Churches And he hath this notable saying upon it God sets such a value upon the Communion of his Church that he looks upon him as an Apostate from his Religion who doth wilfully Separate himself from any Christian Society which hath the true Ministery of the Word and Sacraments And a little after he calls Separation a Denial of God and Christ a destruction of his Truth a mighty provocation of his Anger a crime so great that we can hardly imagine a worse it being a Sacrilegious and perfidious breach of the Marriage betwixt Christ and his People In the next Section he makes it a very dangerous and mischievous temptation so much as to think of Separation from a Church that hath these Marks 5. That although there be many Faults and Corruptions in such a Church yet as long as it retains those Marks Separation from it is not justifiable nay although some of those faults be about Preaching the Word and Administration of Sacraments for saith he all truths are not of equal moment but as long as the Doctrine according to Godliness and the true Vse of Sacraments is kept up Men ought not to separate upon lesser differences but they ought to seek the amending what is amiss continuing in the Communion of the Church and without disturbing the Peace and Order of it And he at large proves what great allowance is to be made as to the corruption of Members from the Examples of the Apostolical Churches and he saith Mens Moroseness in this Matter although it seems to flow from zeal yet it much rather comes from Spiritual Pride and a false opinion of their own holiness above others Although saith he there were such universal corruptions in the Iewish Church that the Prophets compare it to Sodom and Gomorrah yet they never set up new Churches nor erected other Altars whereat they might offer Separate Sacrifices but whatever the People were as long as Gods Word and Ordinances were among them they lifted up pure hands to God although in such an impure Society The same he proves as to Christ and his Apostles From whence he concludes That Separation from such Churches where the true Word of God and Sacraments are is an inexcusable fault But how then comes he to justifie the Separation from the Church of Rome Because in that Church the true Doctrine of Christ is so much suppressed and so many Errors obtruded on Mens Minds in stead of it and the Worship of God so corrupted that the Publick Assemblies are Schools of Idolatry and Wickedness And the truth of the Gospel being the Foundation of the Churches Vnity it can be no culpable Separation to withdraw from the Communion of a Church which hath so notoriously corrupted his Doctrine and Institutions especially when they Anathematize those who will not comply with them But doth he mean any indifferent Rites or Ceremonies where the Doctrine is sound No but False Doctrine and Idolatrous Worship as he frequently declares And therefore he that would go about to defend Separation from a Church on the account of some Ceremonies prescribed and some Corruptions remaining in it must overthrow the fundamental grounds of the Reformation as they are explained by Calvin himself Sect. 23. Among their later Writers no Man hath Vindicated the Cause of the Reformation with greater success and reputation then Mr. Daille in his Apology And the Grounds he goes upon are these 1. That we are bound to avoid the Communion of those who go about to destroy and ruin Christianity 2. If the Church of Rome hath not required any thing from us which destroys our Faith offends our Consciences and overthrows the service which we believe due to God if the differences have been small and such as we might safely have yielded unto then he will grant that their Separation was rash and unjust and they guilty of the Schism 3. He proves that they had weighty reasons for their Separation which are these 1. Imposing new Doctrines as necessary Articles of Faith and yet not all errros in Doctrine do afford sufficient ground for Separation but such as are pernicious and destructive to Salvation for which he instanceth in the Lutherans opinion of Christ's Bodily Presence in the Sacrament which overthrows not the use of the Sacraments nor requires the adoring it it neither divides nor mutilates it nor makes it an Expitiatory Sacrifice for Sin all which follows from the Popish Doctrine From whence he concludes That to separate from a Church for tolerable Errors is an unjust Separation 2. Requiring such Worship as overthrows the Foundations of Christianity which saith he proves the necessity of our Separation and for this he instances in Adoration of the Host which the Church of Rome strictly requiring and the Protestants believing it to be a meer Creature they cannot give it without Idolatry from whence he concludes our Separation to be â—ust because it was necessary Besides this he gives instances in the
Worship of Images Invocation of Saints c. By which we see the Iustice of the Cause of Reformation doth not depend on any such Ceremonies as ours are nor on the want of Discipline nor on the bare Dissatisfaction of Conscience but on such great and important Reasons as obtruding new Articles of Faith and Idolatrous Worship on the partakers of the Communion of the Roman Church Amyraldus goes so far as to say That if there had been no other faults in the Roman Church besides their unprofitable Ceremonies in Baptism and other things beyond the measure and genius of Christian Religion they had still continued in its communion For saith he a Physician is to be born with that loads his Patient with some unuseful Prescriptions if he be otherwise faithful and skilful But if he mixes Poison with his Medicines and besides adds abundance of Prescriptions both needless and chargeable then the Patient hath great reason to look out for better help and to take care of his own safety and freedom By which he plainly declares that bare Ceremonies although many more than ours are no sufficient Ground for Separation Of late years a Person of Reputation in France set forth a Book against the Reformation charging it with Schism because of the Separation from the Roman Church which hath been Answered three several ways by three learned Divines M. Claude M. Pajon and M. Turretin But Do any of these insist upon matters of meer Ceremony where the Doctrine is sound the constant use of Liturgy bare neglect of Discipline c. No they were Men of better understanding than to insist on such things as these which they knew could never bear that weight as to justifie Separation from a Church and that they should have exposed themselves and their Cause to the contempt of all considering Men if they could have alledged no more Substantial Reasons than these But they all agree in such common reasons which they thought sufficient to make a Separation Justifiable viz. Great corruption in Doctrine Idolatrous Worship and insupportable Tyranny over the Consciences of Men. Turretin expresly saith No slight errors no tolerable Superstitious Rites that do not infect the Conscience as they cannot where they are not forced upon it by unsound Doctrine not any corruption of Manners nor defect in Government or Discipline are sufficient grounds for Separation In one word saith he the Patient is not to be forsaken unless his Disease be deadly and infectious nor then neither but with great difficulty Le Blanc shewing the impossibility of Reunion with the Papists goes upon these 3 grounds 1. That it cannot be obtained without subscribing to the Decrees and Canons of the Council of Trent and without Anathematizing all those who have opposed them For the condition of Communion with that Church is no less than receiving all its Errors for necessary Articles of Faith 2. That the Publick Worship practised and allowed in that Church is Idolatrous he instanceth in Adoration of the Host the Worship of Saints and Images 3. That they cannot return to that Church without subjecting their Consciences to the Tyrannical Vsurpations of the Pope Let our Brethren now consider what Triumphs the Church of Rome would make over us if we had nothing to justifie our Separation from them but only that we could not have our Children Baptized without an Aerial Sign of the Cross nor receive the Communion without kneeling that we must observe Holy-days and use a Liturgy and that Men are not so good as they should be nor Discipline so exact as were to be wished How should we be hissed and laughed at all over the Christian World if we had nothing to alledge for our Separation from the Roman Church but such things as these And when the Papists see the weakness of these Allegations they are harden'd in their own ways and cry out presently there is no end of Schism's and Separations on such pretences as these by which unspeakable mischief hath been done to the Cause of the Reformation Sect. 24. 2. This Pretence of Separation would make Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible supposing them to remain as they are For the Lutheran Churches have the same and more Ceremonies and Vnscriptural Impositions as they are called than our Church hath They use the Cross in Baptism Kneeling at the Communion and the observation of Holy-days and times of Fasting and Set-Forms of Prayer c. yet these Churches have been thought fit to be united with the most reformed Churches by the best and wisest Protestants both abroad and at home I do not mean only to have Communion with them in Faith and Love as Dr. O. speaks but to joyn together so as to make the same Bodies of Churches A Synod of the Reformed Churches in France at Charenton A. D. 1631. declared that there was no Idolatry or Superstition in the Lutheran Churches and therefore the Members of their Churches might be received into Communion with them without renouncing their own opinions or Practices Which shews that they did not look on those as sufficient grounds of Separation for then they would not have admitted them as Members of the Lutheran Churches but have told them they ought to forsake their Communion and embrace that of the Reformed Churches Look over all those learned and peaceable Divines who have projected or perswaded an Vnion with the Lutheran Churches and others and see if any of them make the particulars mention'd any cause of Separation from them The Helvetian Churches declare That no Separation ought to be made for different Rites and Ceremonies where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the true Concord of Churches lies in the Doctrine of Christ and the Sacraments delivered by him And this Confession was first drawn up by Bullinger Myconius and Grynaeus and subscribed afterwards by all their Ministers and by those of Geneva and other places And they take notice of the different Customs in other Churches about the Lords Supper and other things yet say they because of our consent in Doctrine these things cause no Breach in our Churches And they make no scruple about the indifferency of any of the Ceremonies used in the Lutheran Churches except those of the Mass and Images in Churches At Sendomir in Poland A. D. 1570. Those who followed the Helvetian Auspurg Bohemian Confessions came to a full agreement so as to make up one Body notwithstanding the different Rites and Ceremonies among them which they say ought not to break the Communion of Churches as long as they agree in the same purity of Doctrine and the same foundation of Faith and Salvation and for this they appeal to the Auspurg and Saxon Confessions The Auspurg Confession declares That agreement in Doctrine and Sacraments is sufficient for the Churches Vnity then Separation cannot be lawful meerly on the account of Ceremonies and Human Traditions And the Confession of Strasburg saith
That they look on no Human Traditions as condemned in Scripture but such as are repugnant to the Law of God and bind the Consciences of Men otherwise if they agree with Scripture and be appointed for good ends although they be not expresly mention'd in Scripture they are rather to be looked on as Divine than Human and the contempt of them is the contempt of God himself nay they say though the Laws seem very hard and unjust a true Christian will not stick at obeying them if they command nothing that is wicked Ioh. Crocius distinguisheth of 3 sorts of Ceremonies The First Commanded The Second Forbidden The Third neither Commanded nor Forbidden The Vnity of the Church supposeth the observation of the First and yet for every omission the Communion of the Church is not to be broken The Second breaks the Churches Vnity yet its communion not to be forsaken for one or two of these if there be no Tyranny over the Consciences of Men but for the Third Men ought not to break the Vnity of the Church And in another place he gives particular instances in the ceremonies observed in the Lutheran Churches the Exorcism in Baptism the Linnen Garments and Wax Candles the Holy-days and Confession c. and declares That we ought not to break off communion with Churches or make a Schism for these things Zanchy accounts it a great sin to disturb the Peace of Churches for the sake of indifferent ceremonies and contrary to that charity we ought to have to our Brethren and to Churches Amyraldus speaking of the ceremonies in the Lutheran Churches saith That those which came in use after the Apostolick times have no other obligation on us than that for the sake of indifferent things though at first appointed out of no necessity nay though there be inconveniency in them yet the Churches Peace ought not to be disturbed And he very well observes That the Nature of ceremonies is to be taken from the Doctrine which goes along with them if the Doctrine be good the Rites are so or at least are tolerable if it be false then they are troublesome and not to be born if it be impure and lead to Idolatry then the ceremonies are tainted with the Poyson of it But saith he the Lutheran Churches have no false or wicked Doctrine concerning their Rites and therefore he adviseth persons to communicate with the Lutheran Churches as their occasions serve and so do others And Ludovicus Prince Elector Palatine not only congratulated the mutual communion of the several Churches in Poland but Pray'd for the same in Germany too as Bishop Davenant tells us who proves at large that there is no sufficient Reason to hinder it which he makes to lie only in three things I. Tyranny over Mens Faith and Consciences II. The Practise of Idolatry III. The denial of some Fundamental Article of Faith And none of these things being chargeable on the Lutheran Churches the lawfulness of the terms of Communion with them doth fully appear And now I desire our Brethren who justifie their Separation upon pretence that our Terms of communion are unlawful to reflect upon these things Will they condemn so many Protestant Churches abroad which have harder Terms of communion than we What would they think of the Exorcism of Infants of Auricular Confession of Images in Churches and some other things besides what are observed among us Do we want Discipline Do they not in other Churches abroad The Transylvanian Divines in their Discourse of the Vnion of Protestant Churches declared That little or none was observed among them Will they then Separate from all Protestant Churches Will they confine the Communion of Christians to their Narrow Scantlings Will they shut out all the Lutheran Churches from any possibility of Vnion with them For What Vnion can be justifiable with those whose terms of Communion are unlawful They may pity them and pray for them and wish for their Reformation but an Vnion doth suppose such a Communion of Churches that the Members of one may communicate in another Do they allow this to the Lutheran Churches If not then they render Vnion among the Protestant Churches impossible because unlawful If they do will they be so unjust as not to allow the same favor and kindness to our own Church Can they think Separation necessary from our Church on those grounds which are common to us with other Protestant Churches and yet think Vnion desirable and possible with them notwithstanding Do they think that 〈◊〉 Members of the Reformed Churches could lawfully communicate with the Lutheran Churches although they have the Cross in Baptism Kâ—eâ—â—g at the Communion the Surpless and other Ceremonies which we have not and yet Is it necessary to Sâ—parate from our Churches Communion on the account of such things as these where there is acknowledged to be a full Agreement in the Substantials of Religion Either therefore they must differ from the judgment of the Reformed Churches and the most emineâ—â— Protestant Divines abroad or they must renounce this Principle of Separation Sect. 25. 3. This will justifie the ancient Schisms which have been always condemn'd in the Christian Church For setting aside the Ceremonies of which already and the use of the Liturgy and Holy-days which is common to our Church with all other Christian Churches for many hundred years before the great degeneracy of the Roman Church and are continued by an Vniversal consent in all parts of the Christian World the other Reasons for Separation are such which will justifie the greatest Schismaticks that ever were in the Christian Church viz. Want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and due means of Edification and depriving the People of their Liberty of choosing their own Pastors whereby they are deprived also of all use of their light and knowledge of the Gospel in providing for their own Edification For What gave occasion to the Novatian Schism which began so soon and spread so far and continued so long but the pretence of the want of Evangelical Church-Discipline and better means of Edification and humoring the People in the choice of their own Pastors There were Two things the Novatians chiefly insisted on as to Evangelical Discipline 1. The Power of the Keys 2. The Purity of the Church 1. As to the Power of the Keys they said That Christ had never given it absolutely to his Church but under certain restrictions which if Men exceeded the Church had no Power to release them and that was especially in the case of denial of Christ before Men when Men fell in time of Persecution 2. The Churches Purity ought to be preserved by keeping such who had thus fallen from ever being receiv'd into communion again They did not deny that God might pardon such upon Repentance but they said the Church could not And this they pleaded would tend very much to the Edification of Christians and would make them more watchful over
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-England That they that separate from their Brethren farther than they have just Cause shall at length
yet the more heinous `that it is commonly father'd upon God Lastly that it is most unlike the Heavenly State and in some regard worse than the Kingdom of the Devil for he would not destroy it by dividing it against it self Remember now saith he that Schism and making Parties and Divisions in the Church is not so small a Sin as many take it for I conclude this with his Admonition to Bag shaw upon his lessening the Sin of Separation Alass dear Brother that after so many years Silencing and Affliction after Flames and Plagues and Dreadful Iudgments after Twenty years Practice of the Sin it self and when we are buried in the Ruines which it caused we should not yet know that our own Vncharitable Divisions Alienations and Separations are a Crying Sin Yea the Crying Sin as well as the Vncharitableness and Hurtfulness of others Alass Will God leave us also even us to the Obdurateness of Pharaoh Doth not Iudgment begin with us Is there not Crying Sin with us What have we done to Christ's Kingdom to this Kingdom to our Friends dead and alive to our selves and alass to our Enemies by our Divisions And Do we not feel it Do we not know it Is it to us even to us a Crime intolerable to call us to Repentance Woe to us Into what Hard-heartedness have we sinned our selves Yea that we should continue and Passionately defend it When will God give us Repentance unto Life Let Mr. A. read these Passages over Seriously and then consider Whether he can go on to Excuse and Palliate the SIN of SCHISM But it may be said That Mr. A. speaks all this Comparatively with enslaving our Iudgments and Consciences to others which he calls an Enormous and Monstrous Principle and he saith This is a Medicine worse than the Poyson even as 't is much better to have a Rational Soul though subject to Mistakes than the Soul of a Brute which may be managed as you will with a strong bit and bridle To make it plain that he makes little or nothing of the Sin of Separation we must attend to the Argument he was to Answer which was That if it be lawful to Separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an Agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is agreed in our Case then a bare difference of Opinion as to some circumstances of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient Ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of Mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to farther Separation Where we see plainly the inconvenience urged is endless Separation Doth he set any kind of bounds to it No but only talkes of inconsiderable and petty inconveniencies and some little trouble that may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds i. e. let Men Separate as long as they will â—his is the worst of it and he must grant that though Separation be endless there is no harm in it But he that could find out a medium between Circumstances of Worship and Substantials can find out none between endless Separation and the enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences for he supposes one of the two must of necessity be Which is plain giving up the Cause to the Papists For this is their Argument Either we must give up our Iudgments and Consciences to the Conduct of our Guides or there will be endless Separation He grants the consequence and cries What then It is nothing but the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and this is much rather to be chosen than the other But any sound Protestant that understands the State of the Controversie between us and them as this Author apparently doth not will presently deny the Consequence because a prudent and due submission in lawful things lies between Tyranny over Mens Consciences and endless Separation But he knows no Medium between being tied Neck and Heels together and leaping over Hedge and Ditch being kept within no bounds And what ignorance or malice is it to suppose that our Church brings in that enormous and monstrous Principle of enslaving Mens Iudgments and Consciences forcing them to surrender their Reasons to naked Will and Pleasure and if he doth not suppose it his Discourse is frivolous and impertiâ—â—â—t For a due submission to the Rules of our established Church without any force on the Consciences of Men as to the Infallibility of Guides or necessity of the things themselves will put a sufficient stop to Separation which must be endless on my Adversaries suppositions Sect. 28. 5. Lastly I Argue against this Separation from the Obligation which lies upon all Christians to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church And now I have brought the matter home to the Consciences of Men who it may be will little regard other inconveniences if the practice of Separation do not appear to be unlawful from the Word of God Which I now undertake to prove upon these Suppositions 1. That all Christians are under the strictest obligations to preserve the Peace and Vnity of the Church For it is not possible to suppose that any Duty should be bound upon the Consciences of Men with plainer Precepts and stronger Arguments than this is The places are so many that it were endless to repeat them and therefore needless because this is agreed on all hands So that violation of the Vnity of the Church where there is no sufficient reason to justifie it is a Sin as much as Murder is and as plainly forbidden But it happens here as it doth in the other case that as Murder is always a sin but there may be some circumstances which may make the taking away a Mans life not to be Murder so it may happen that though Schism be always a sin yet there may be such circumstances which may make a Separation not to be a Schism but then they must be such Reasons as are not fetched from our Fancies no more than in the case of Murder but such as are allowed by God himself in his Law For he only that made the Law can except from it 2. The Vnity of the Church doth not lie in a bare communion of Faith and Love but in a Ioynt-participation of the Ordinances appointed by Christ to be observed in his Church For although the former be a duty yet it doth not take in the whole Duty of a Christian which is to joyn together as Members of the same Body And therefore they are commanded to Assemble together and upon the first Institution of a Christian Church it is said The Disciples continued in the Apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and in breaking of Bread and in Prayers And the Apostle sets forth Christians as making one Body by Communion in the Ordinances of Christ. We being many are one Bread and one Body for we are
he hopes it will not be made a Rule that Communion may not be withheld so the sense must be although not be left out or withdrawn from any Church in any thing so long as it continues as unto the essence of it to be so This is somewhat odly and faintly expressed But as long as he grants that our Parochial Churches are not guilty of such heinous Errours in Doctrine or idolatrous Practice in Worship as to deprive them of the Being and Nature of Churches I do assert it to be a Sin to separate from them Not but that I think there may be a separation without sin from a Society retaining the essentials of a Church but then I say the reason of such separation is some heinous Errour in Doctrine or some idolatrous Practice in Worship or some tyranny over the Consciences of men which may not be such as to destroy true Baptism and therefore consistent with the essentials of a Church And this is all that I know the Protestant Writers do assert in this matter 2. He answers That they do not say that because Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ hath instituted that therefore it is lawfull and necessary to separate from Parochial Churches but if it be on other grounds necessary so to separate or withhold Communion from them it is the duty of them who doe so to joyn themselves in or unto some other particular Congregation To which I reply that This is either not to the business or it is a plain giving up the Cause of Independency For wherefore did the dissenting Brethren so much insist upon their separate Congregations when not one of the things now particularly alleged against our Church was required of them But if he insists on those things common to our Church with other reformed Churches then they are such things as he supposes contrary to the first Institution of Churches And then I intreat him to tell me what difference there is between separating from our Churches because Communion in Ordinances is onely to be enjoy'd in such Churches as Christ hath instituted and separating from them because they have things repugnant to the first Institution of Churches Is not this the primary reason of Separation because Christ hath appointed unalterable Rules for the Government of his Church which we are bound to observe and which are not observed in Parochial Churches Indeed the most immediate reason of separation from such a Church is not observing Christ's Institution but the primary ground is that Christ hath settled such Rules for Churches which must be unalterably observed Let us then 1. suppose that Christ hath by unalterable Rules appointed that a Church shall consist onely of such a number of men as may meet in one Congregation so qualified and that these by entring into Covenant with each other become a Church and choose their Officers who are to Teach and Admonish and Administer Sacraments and to exercise Discipline by the consent of the Congregation And let us 2. suppose such a Church not yet gathered but there lies fit matter for it dispersed up and down in several Parishes 3. Let us suppose Dr. O. about to gather such a Church 4. Let us suppose not one thing peculiar to our Church required of these members neither the aëreal sign of the Cross nor kneeling at the Communion c. I desire then to know whether Dr. O. be not bound by these unalterable Rules to draw these members from Communion with their Parochial Churches on purpose that they might form a Congregational Church according to Christ's Institution Either then he must quit these unalterable Rules and the Institution of Christ or he must acknowledge that setting up a Congregational Church is the primary ground of their Separation from our Parochial Churches If they do suppose but one of those Ordinances wanting which they believe Christ hath instituted in particular Churches do they not believe this a sufficient ground for separation It is not therefore any Reason peculiar to our Church which is the true Cause of their separation but such Reasons as are common to all Churches that are not formed just after their own model If there be then unalterable Rules for Congregational Churches those must be observed and separation made in order to it and therefore separation is necessary upon Dr. O.'s grounds not from the particular Conditions of Communion with us but because our Parochial Churches are not formed after the Congregational way But this was a necessary piece of art at this time to keep fair with the Presbyterian Party and to make them believe if they can be so forgetfull that they do not own separation from their Churches but onely from ours the contrary whereof is so apparent from the debates with the dissenting Brethren and the setting up Congregational Churches in those days that they must be forgetfull indeed who do not remember it Have those of the Congregational way since alter'd their judgments Hath Dr. O. yielded that in case some terms of Communion in our Church were not insisted upon they would give over separation Were not their Churches first gathered out of Presbyterian Congregations And if Presbytery had been settled upon the Kings Restauration would they not have continued their Separation Why then must our Church now be accused for giving the Occasion to the Independent separation when it is notoriously otherwise and they did separate and form their Churches upon reasons common to our Church with all other Reformed Churches This is more artificial than ingenuous Sect. 2. As to the Second Dr. O. answers that it is so clear and evident in matter of fact and so necessary from the nature of the thing that the Churches planted by the Apostles were limited to Congregations that many wise men wholly unconcerned in our Controversies do take it for a thing to be granted by all without dispute And for this two Testimonies are alleged of Iustice Hobart and Father Paul but neither of them speaks to the point All that Chief Iustice Hobart saith is That the Primitive Church in its greatest Purity was but voluntary Congregations of Believers submitting themselves to the Apostles and after to other Pastours Methinks Dr. O. should have left this Testimony to his Friend L. du Moulin it signifies so very little to the purpose or rather quite overthrows his Hypothesis as appears by these two Arguments 1. Those voluntary Congregations over which the Apostles were set were no limited Congregations of any one particular Church but those Congregations over whom the Apostles were set are those of which Iustice Hobart speaks And therefore it is plain he spake of all the Churches which were under the care of the Apostles which he calls voluntary Congregations 2. Those voluntary Congregations over whom the Apostles appointed Pastours after their decease were no particular Congregations in one City but those of whom Iustice Hobart speaks were such for he saith they first
great extent of Diocesan Power then and that is of Theodoret a great and learned Bishop and although his Bishoprick was none of the largest yet in his Epistle to Leo he saith he had the Pastoral charge of 800 Churches for so many Parishes saith he are in my Diocese which he had then enjoyed twenty six years Doth Mr. B. believe that all the Christians in these 800 Churches had personal Communion with Theodoret And yet these Parishes did not change their species for he saith they were Churches still This Testimony of Theodoret is so full and peremptory that Mr. Baxter hath no other way to avoid the force of it but to call in question the Authority of the Epistle But without any considerable ground unless it be that it contradicts his Hypothesis For what if Theodoret ' s Epistles came out of the Vatican Copy Is that a sufficient argument to reject them unless some inconsistency be proved in those Epistles with the History of those times or with his other Writings Which are the Rules Rivet gives for judging the sincerity of them That Epistle which Bellarmin and others reject as spurious is contradicted by other Epistles of his still extant which shew a full reconciliation between Cyril of Alexandria and him before his death And it is supposed that Iohn of Antioch was dead some considerable time before Cyril which manifestly overthrows the Authority of it But what is there like that in this Epistle to Leo when the matter of fact is proved by other Epistles As to the unreasonable proceedings of Dioscorus against him which was the occasion of writing it his other Epistles are so full of it that Mr. B. never read the rest if he calls this into question upon that account That Hypatius Abramius and Alypius were sent into the West upon Theodoret's account appears by the Epistles to Renatus and Florentius which follow that to Leo. What if several Epistles of his are lost which Nicephorus saw doth that prove all that are remaining to be counterfeit But he is much mistaken if he thinks there was no other Copy but the Vatican translated by Metius for Sirmondus tells us he met with another Copy at Naples which he compared with the Vatican and published the various Readings of the Epistles from it What if Leontius saith that Hereticks feigned Epistles in Theodoret ' s name Doth that prove an Epistle wherein he vindicates himself from the imputation of Heresie to be spurious What Mr. B. means by the printing this Epistle alone after Theodoret ' s Works I do not well understand unless he never saw any other than the Latin Edition of Theodoret. But it is a very bold thing to pronounce concerning the Authority of a man's Writings without so much as looking into the latest and best Editions of them But there are two things he objects which seem more material 1. That it seems incredible that a Town within two days journey of Antioch should have 800 Churches in it at that time 2. That he proves from other places in Theodoret that it is very improbable that Dioceses had then so many Churches 1. As to the first certainly no man in his wits ever undertook to prove that one such City as Cyrus then was had 800 Churches in it But by Cyrus Theodoret means the Diocese of Cyrus as will afterwards appear If Cyrus were taken for the Regio Cyrrhestica with the bounds given it by Ptolemy Strabo and Pliny then there would not appear the least improbability in it since many considerable Cities were within it as Beroea now Aleppo and Hierapolis and extended as far as Euphrates Zeugma being comprehended under it The Ecclesiastical Province was likewise very large and by the ancient Notitiae it is sometimes called Euphratensis which in Ammianus his time took in Comagena and extended to Samosata but the Regio Cyrrhestica before was distinct from Comagena as appears by Strabo and others in that Province there was a Metropolitan who was called the Metropolitan of Hagiopolis which by the same Notitiae appears to have been then one of the names of Cyrus or Cyrrhus But notwithstanding I do not think the words of Theodoret are to be understood of the Province but of his own peculiar Diocese for Theodoret mentions the Metropolitan he was under By Cyrus therefore we understand the Region about the City which was under Theodoret's care within which he was confined by the Emperour's Order as he complains in several Epistles and there it is called by him 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Regio Cyrrhestica and Theodoret himself sets down the extent of it in his Epistle to Constantius where he saith it was forty miles in length and forty in breadth And he saith in another Epistle that Christianity was then so much spread among them that not onely the Cities but the Villages the Fields and utmost bounds were filled with Divine Grace And that these Villages had Churches and Priests settled in them under the care of the Bishop appears expresly from a passage in the Life of Symeon where he speaks of Bassus visiting the Parochial Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 If there were then Parochial Churches settled with Presbyters in them and these under the care of the Diocesan Bishop then Mr. B.'s Hypothesis is utterly overthrown In his Epistle to Nomus he mentions eight Villages in his Diocese that were overrun with the Heresie of Marcion another with the Eunomian another with the Arian Heresie which were all converted by his care and in another place he saith he had brought ten thousand Marcionists to Baptism In another he mentions the spreading of Marcion ' s Doctrine in his Diocese and the great pains he took to root it out and the success he had therein And we find the names of many of the Villages in his Lives as Tillima Targala Nimuza Teleda Telanissus which are sufficient to shew that Theodoret had properly a Diocesan Church and that his Episcopal care and Authority did extend to many Parochial Churches his Diocese being forty miles in length and as many in breadth So that Mr. B. must reject not onley that Epistle to Leo but the rest too and his other Works if he hopes to make good his Parochial Episcopacy which is too hard a task to be undertaken without better evidence than he hath hitherto brought 2. But he offers to produce other Testimonies out of Theodoret to shew the improbability that Dioceses had so many Churches The question is not about the bare number of Churches in Dioceses which all men know to have been very different but about the extent of Episcopal Power whether it were limited to one Parochial Church or was extended over many And what is there in Theodoret which contradicts this I extreamly failed of my expectation as to the other places of Theodoret which he promised to produce For I find five or six places
than mutual forbearance towards each other Let now any rational man judge whether it appear probable that so loose and shatter'd a Government as this is should answer the obligation among Christians to use the best and most effectual means to preserve the Faith once delivered to the Saints and to uphold Peace and Vnity among Christians But supposing all these several Congregations united together under such common bonds that the Preacher is accountable to superiours that none be admitted but such as own the true Faith and promise obedience that publick legal Censures take hold upon the disturbers of the Churches Peace here we have a far more effectual means according to Reason for upholding true Religion among us And that this is no meer theory appears by the sad experience of this Nation when upon the breaking the bonds of our National Church-Government there came such an overpowring inundation of Errours and Schisms among us that this Age is like to smart under the sad effects of it And in New-England two or three men as Williams Gorton and Clark discovered the apparent weakness of the Independent Government which being very material to this business I shall give a brief account of it as to one of them Mr. Roger Williams was the Teacher of a Congregational Church at Salem and a man in very good esteem as appears by Mr. Cotton's Letter to him he was a great admirer of the purity of the New-England Churches but being a thinking man he pursued the principles of that way farther than they thought fit for he thought it unlawfull to joyn with unregenerate men in prayer or taking an Oath and that there ought to be an unlimited toleration of Opinions c. These Doctrines and some others of his not taking he proceeded to Separation from them and gathered a New Church in opposition to theirs this gave such a disturbance to them that the Magistrates sent for him and the Ministers reasoned the case with him He told them he went upon their own grounds and therefore they had no reason to blame him Mr. Cotton told him they deserved to be punished who made Separation among them Mr. Williams replied this would return upon themselves for had not they done the same as to the Churches of Old-England In short after their debates and Mr. Williams continuing in his principles of Separation from their Churches a sentence of banishment is decreed against him by the Magistrates and this sentence approved and justified by their Churches For these are Mr. Cotton's words That the increase of concourse of People to him on the Lord's days in private to a neglect or deserting of publick Ordinances and to the spreading of the leaven of his corrupt imaginations provoked the Magistrates rather than to breed a Winters spiritual plague in the Country to put upon him a Winters journey out of the Country This Mr. Williams told them was falling into the National Church way which they disowned or else saith he why must he that is banished from the one be banished from the other also And he charges them that they have suppressed Churches set up after the Parochial way and although the Persons were otherwise allowed to be godly to live in the same air with them if they set up any other Church or Worship than what themselves practised Which appears by the Laws of New England mentioned before and Mr. Cobbet one of the Teachers of their Churches confesseth that by the Laws of the Country none are to be free men but such as are members of Churches I now appeal to any man whether these proceedings and these Laws do not manifestly discover the apparent weakness and insufficiency of the Congregational way for preventing those disorders which they apprehend to be destructive to their Churches why had not Mr. Williams his liberty of Separation as well as they why are no Anabaptists or Quakers permitted among them Because these ways would disturb their Peace and distract their People and in time overthrow their Churches Very well but where is the entireness of the power of every single Congregation the mean while Why might not the People at Salem have the same liberty as those at Boston or Plymouth The plain truth is they found by experience this Congregational way would not do alone without civil Sanctions and the interposing of the Pastours of other Churches For when Williams and Gorton and Clark had begun to make some impressions on their People they bestiâ—red themselves as much as possible to have their mouths stopt and their persons banished This I do onely mention to shew that where this way hath prevailed most they have found it very insufficient to carry on those ends which themselves judged necessary for the preservation of their Religion and of Peace and Vnity among themselves And in their Synod at Boston 1662 the New-England Churches are come to apprehend the necessity of Conâ—eciation of Churches in case of divisions and contentions and for the rectifying of male-administrations and healing of errours and scandals that are unhealed among themselves For Christ's care say they is for whole Churches as well as for particular persons Of which Consociation they tell us that Mr. Cotton drew a platform before his death Is such a Consociation of Churches a Duty or not in such cases If not why do they doe any thing relating to Church Government for which they have no Command in Scripture If there be a Command in Scripture then there is an Institution of a Power above Congregational Churches It is but a slender evasion which they use when they call these onely voluntary Combinations for what are all Churches else Onely the antecedent obligation on men to joyn for the Worship of God makes entring into other Churches a Duty and so the obligation lying upon Church-Officers to use the best means to prevent or heal divisions will make such Consociations a Duty too And therefore in such cases the Nature of the thing requires an union and conjunction superiour to that of Congregational Churches which is then most agreeable to Scripture and Antiquity when the Bishops and Presbyters joyn together Who agreeing together upon Articles of Doctrine and Rules of Worship and Discipline are the National Church representative and these being owned and established by the civil Power and received by the Body of the Nation and all persons obliged to observe the same in the several Congregations for Worship these Congregations so united in these common bonds of Religion make up the compleat National Church Sect. 20. And now I hope I may have leave to consider Mr. Baxter's subtilties about this matter which being spred abroad in abundance of words to the same purpose I shall reduce to these following heads wherein the main difficulties lie 1. Concerning the difference between a National Church and a Christian Kingdom 2. Concerning the Governing Power of this National Church which he calls the Constitutive regent part 3.
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
Rights of Patronage are as just and legal Rights as men have to their Estates and consequently every Minister duly presented hath a legal Title to the Temple and Tithes as Mr. B. calls them But this doth not saith he make a Minister for their Souls and the Parlament cannot dispose of their Souls The meaning of all which is if the People be humorsome and factious they may run after whom they please and set up what Minister they please in opposition to Laws And so for instance suppose a Parish be divided in their Opinions about Religion as we know too many are at this day all these several parties viz. Anabaptists Quakers yea and Papists too as well as others will put in for an equal share in what concerns the care of their Souls and consequently may choose a several Pastour to themselves and leave the Incumbent the bare possession of the Temple and Tithes But if there be no other objection this may be thought sufficient that he was none of their choosing being imposed upon them by others who could not dispose of their Souls By which means this pretence of taking care for their Souls will be made use of to justifie the greatest disorder and confusion which can happen in a Church For let the Person be never so worthy in himself the People are still to have their liberty of choosing for themselves And who are these People Must all have equal Votes then according to Mr. B.'s opinion of our Churches the worst will be soonest chosen for why should we not think the worst People will choose their like as well as the worst Patrons and the worst Bishops But if the Profane must be excluded by what Law Is it because they have no right to the Ordinances But have they no right to their own Souls and to the care of them therefore they are equally concerned with others Yet let us suppose all these excluded as no competent Iudges shall all the rest be excluded too who are incompetent Iudges then I am afraid there will not be many left And whatever they pretend the People wherâ— they do choose do trust other mens Judgments as well as where the Patrons present and to prevent popular tumults such elections are generally brought by a kind of devolution to a few Persons who are entrusted to choose for the rest But if all the People were left to choose their own Pastours it is not to be imagined what parties and factions what mutual hatreds and perpetual animosities they would naturally fall into on such occasions Do we not daily see such things to be the fruits of popular elections where men are concerned for the strength and reputation of their Party What envying and strife what evil speaking and backbiting what tumults and disorders what unchristian behaviour in general of men to each other do commonly accompany such elections Which being the natural effects of mens passions stirred up by such occasions and there being so much experience of it in all Ages of the Christian Church where such things have been I am as certain that Christ never gave the People such an unalterable Right of choosing their own Ministers as I am that he designed to have the peace and unity of the Church preserved And of all Persons I do the most wonder at him who pretends to discover the Onely way of unity and concord among Christians that he should so much so frequently so earnestly insist upon this which if it be not the onely is one of the most effectual ways to perpetuate disorder and confusion in a broken and divided Church And so much for the Plea for Separation taken from the Peoples Rights to choose their own Ministers Sect. 26. Having thus dispatched all the Pleas for Separation which relate to the Constitution of our Church I come to those which concern the Terms of Communion with us whâ—â— are said to be unlawfull One of the chief Pleas alledged for Separation by Dr. O. and Mr. A. is that many things in the constant total Communion of Parochial Churches are imposed on the Consciences and Practices of men which are not according to the mind of Christ. These are very general words but Dr. O. reckons up the particulars which setting aside those already considered are the use of the Aëreal sign of the Cross kneeling at the Communion the Religious observation of Holy-days and the constant use of the Liturgy in all the publick Offices of the Church As to this last I shall say nothing it being lately so very well defended by a learned Divine of our Church To the other Mr. B. adds the use of Godfathers and Godmothers and now I am to examine what weight there is in these things to make men seriously think Communion with our Church unlawfull When I found our Church thus charged with prescribing unlawfull terms of Communion I expected a particular and distinct proof of such a charge because the main weight of the Cause depended upon it And this is the method we use in dealing with the Church of Rome We do not run upon general charges of unscriptural Impositions and things imposed on mens Consciences against the mind of Christ but we close with them upon the particulars of the charge as Worship of Images Invocation of Saints Adoration of the Host and we offer to prove by plain Scripture that these are forbidden and therefore unlawfull But I find no such method taken or pursued by our Brethren onely we are told over and over that they judge they think they esteem them unlawfull and they cannot be satisfied about them but for particular arguments to prove them unlawfull I find none which makes the whole charge look very suspiciously For men do not use to remain in generals when they have any assurance of the Goodness of their Cause Yet to let the Reader see that I decline nothing that looks like argument in this matter I shall pick up every thing I can find which seems to prove these terms of our Communion to be unlawfull or to justify their Separation In the Epistle before my Sermon I had used this Argument against the present Separation that if it be lawfull to separate on a pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship as is acknowledged in our Case then a bare difference of opinion as to some circumstantials of Worship and the best Constitution of Churches will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches which considering the great variety of mens fancies about these matters is to make an infinite Divisibility in Churches without any possible stop to further Separation This Argument others were willing to pass over but Mr. A. in his Preface undertakes to answer it in all the parts of it which being so material to our business I shall now distinctly consider and like an able Disputant he allows nothing at all in this Argument for
that it is lawfull saith he by the sight of a Crucifix to be provoked to worship God but it 's unlawfull to offer him that Worship by offering it to the Crucifix first as the sign way or means of sending it to God Observe here a strange piece of partiality 1. It is allowed to be lawfull to pray before a Crucifix as a medium excitans as an object that stirs up in us a worshipping affection and so all those Papists are excused from Idolatry who profess they use a Crucifix for no other end although they perform all Acts of adoration before it and it will become a very hard Question whether the mind in its consideration uniting the Image with the Object may not give the same Acts of Worship to one as to the other but in different respects For the Image being allowed to excite the mind to consideration of the object to be worshipped the object is considered in the mind as represented by the Image and consequently is so worshipped and why then may not the worship be as well directed to the Image as representing as to the Object represented by the Image provided that the Act of the mind be still fixed upon the Object as represented by the Image And thus even Latria may be performed to a Crucifix Is not this a very fair concession to the Papists But on the other side 2. The sign of the Cross even the aëreal sign as Dr. O. calls it must be made a medium in God's Worship though it be utterly denied by our Church and there be no colour for it from his own grounds For it is neither medium excitans being not intended by our Church for that purpose a Crucifix being much fitter for that purpose and our Church calls it onely a lawfull ceremony and honourable badge much less can it be thought to be any mediate object of our Worship there being nothing like Worship performed towards it But if all his meaning be that whatever is used in the time of Worship that is not a meer circumstance must be a medium of Worship that is so weak a pretence that I shall consider it no farther Sect. 31. But suppose it be no medium of Worship yet it cannot out of Mr. B. 's Head but that it must be a new Sacrament For saith he If Christ had instituted the Cross as our Church doth would you not have called this a Sacrament And if it want but Divine Institution and Benediction it wanteth indeed a due efficient but it is still a Human Sacrament though not a Divine and therefore an unlawfull Sacrament If Christ had instituted it with such promises as he hath his other Sacraments no doubt it had been one but then the use of it had been quite changed from what it is now For then its signification had been from God to us and the Minister had signed in Christ's Name and not in the Churches and then it had been in token that Christ will not fail of his Promise if we perform our Conditions But here it is quite contrary as hath already appeared There is one thing yet remaining in Mr. B. about this matter to be considered viz. That according to the Rule of our Church the Cross in Baptism hath a Sacramental efficacy attributed to it for saith he As the Water of Baptism worketh morally by signifying the washing of Christ's Body so the Cross is to operate morally by signifying Christ's Crucifixion the benefits of his Cross and our Duty And then he adds That it is the common Doctrine of Protestants that the Sacraments are not instituted to give Grace physically but onely morally and that even the wisest Papists themselves do maintain onely such moral Causality in Sacraments And so by this means he would make the sign of the Cross to have the nature of a Sacrament with us But that he hath misrepresented or misapplied both the Popish and Protestant Doctrine about the efficacy of Sacraments to serve his purpose I shall now make appear 1. Concerning the Popish Doctrine that which overthrows the strength of all that Mr. B. saith is that it is unanimously agreed among them as a matter of faith that the Sacraments do confer grace ex opere operato where there is no actual impediment and that it is no less than heresie to assert that they are bare outward professing signs i. e. That they are meer Ceremonies This not one of them whom I ever saw either denies or disputes and it is expresly determin'd in the Councils of Florence and of Trent But then they have a very nice and subtle question among them about the manner how the Sacraments do confer Grace whether physically or morally By physically they mean when a thing by its own immediate action hath influence on producing the effect by morally they mean that which doth effectually concurr to the producing the effect but after another manner as by perswasion by intreaty c. As he that runs the sword into anothers bowels kills him physically he that perswades and incourages him effectually to doe it is as really the cause of his death as the other but then they say he is but a moral and not a physical cause of the murther They all agree that the Sacraments do effectually convey Grace where there is no obstacle put but the onely question is about the manner of producing it And as to this they agree that the Sacraments do work as moral Causes not principal but instrumental the principal they say is the Merit of Christ the Instrumental the Sacraments as deriving their efficacy from the former as the Writing from the Seal and the Seal from the Authority of the Person or as Money from the Stamp and the Stamp from the King but besides this they question whether there be not a proper efficiency by Divine Power in the Sacraments to produce at least the character from whence Divine Grace immediately follows And about this indeed they are divided Some say there is no necessity of asserting more than a bare moral Causality because this is sufficient for the infallible efficacy of the Sacraments sublato obice as Gamachaeus a late Professour in the Sorbon delivers their Doctrine and of this opinion he reckons Bonaventure Altissidore Scotus Durandus Canus Ledesma and many others and with this he closes because this is sufficient and the other is to make Miracles without cause as long as the effect follows certò infallibiliter ex opere operato as he there speaks And for the same reason Card. de Lugo yields to it although he there saith that a Sacrament is signum practicum infallibile Gratiae So that those who do assert onely this moral Causality of Sacraments do not suppose any uncertainty in the effect any more than the others do but onely differ about the way of producing it Yet Ysambertus another late Professour of the Sorbon proves the Doctrine of a Physical efficiency to be much
of shewing this Reverence viz. with lowness of courtesie and uncovering of heads of mankind it supposeth them at that time not to be imployed in any other Act of Devotion And so it gives no interruption to the intention of it nor obliges men to lie at the catch for the coming of the word as though all our Worship consisted in it but since our Church approves it as a laudable Ceremony we ought not to refuse it at seasonable times unless it can be proved unlawfull in it self Which I say can never be done as long as the Worship is directed to a true object viz. the Person of Christ and the mention of his name onely expresses the time as the tolling the Bell doth of going to Church Neither doth it signifie any thing to this purpose whether Persons be in the Church or out of it when the Bell rings for in the same page he mentions the Mass-bell which sounds to the People in the Church as well as out of it and if the Object of their Worship were true as it is false that would make him better understand the parallel But saith he if it be a duty to give external Reverence to God when ever the word Iesus is mentioned there is more need of it in our ordinary converses and the secular affairs of the world and so he addes this word might do the service of the Mass-bell going about the streets at which all are bound to fall down and worship Now what a strange piece of crosness is this to dispute the lawfulness of doing it at Church because we do it not at the Market-place My business is to defend what our Church requires if he will allow that and thinks it convenient to do it likewise in common conversation let him defend his own new invented wayes of Reverence as for us we think there are proper seasons for Divine Worship and that it is not enough to do what is lawful unless it be done at its convenient time but there are some men who know no mean between doing nothing and over-doing But is this becoming a Protestant Divine to parallel the Worship we give to the Eternal Son of God as our Church declares Can. 18. and that which the Papists give to the Host when it is carried up and down the streets At last he commends the moderation of the Canon 1640. about bowing towards the East or Altar that they which use this Rite despise not them who use it not and they who use it not condemn not those that use it but he would fain know why the same moderation should not be used in other Rites as the sign of the Crâ—sâ— and kneeling at the Lords Supper It had been much more to his purpose to have proved any thing unlawful which had been required by our Church But the case was not the same as to those things which were required by our Church ever since the Reformation and as to some customes which although in themselves lawful yet were never strictly enjoyned but left indifferent And therefore the moderation used in the Canon 1640 was very suitable to the principles of our Church but how doth it follow that because some things are left at liberty therefore nothing should be determin'd or being determin'd ought not to be obeyed It was the great Wisdom of our Church not to make more things necessary as to practice than were made so at the settlement of our Reformation but whether there be sufficient Reason to alter those terms of Communion which were then settled for the sake of such whose scruples are groundless and endless I do not take upon me here to determine But as far as I can perceive by Mr. A. he thinks the Apostles Rule of forbearance Rom. 14. to be of equal force in all ages and as to all things about which Christians have different apprehensions and then the Papists come in for an equal share in such a toleration And so those who do not worship the Host or Images or use Auricular Confession must not censure those that do unless he will say that the Papists have no scruple of Conscience as to such things but if notwithstanding these scruples our Laws put a just restraint upon them then the Rule of Forbearance Rom. 14. is no obligatory Law to Christians in all Ages and consequently notwithstanding that our Church may justly require the observation of some things though it leaves others undetermin'd But he saith these Customes though left indifferent are still observed among us and practised by all the leading Church-men And what then are they lawful or are they not If not why are they not proved to be unlawful And if that were proved what is all this to the point of Separation unless they were enjoyned to all People and made terms of Communion i. e. that persons were not allowed to joyn in all Acts of Communion with us unless they did them However he thinks this will prove What that they differ from us in any substantial part of Worship No he dares not say that but what then that we differ in more than a circumstance even at least in a circumstantial part of Worship yet we must be supposed to be agreed To convince the Reader what an admirable faculty of proving this man hath let him but look on the thing he undertook to prove I had said that we were agreed in the substantial parts of Worship this he undertakes to disprove for two or three leaves together and the conclusion is that at least we differ in a circumstantial part of Worship and his consequence must be therefore we differ in a substantial or else it is idle and impertinent talk T. G. would have been ashamed to have argued after this fashion but they are to be pittied they both do as well as their Cause will bear Yet Mr. A. cannot give over for he hath a very good will at proving something against our Church although he hath very ill luck in the doing of it My argument was If it be lawful to separate upon pretence of greater purity where there is an agreement in doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship then a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials in Worship and the best constitution of Churches will be a sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches Hitherto we have considered his denial of the Antecedent and the charge he hath brought against our Church about new substantial parts of Worship we now come to his denying the Consequence viz. that although it be granted that there is an agreement in Doctrine and the substantial parts of Worship yet he will not allow it to follow that a bare difference in opinion as to some circumstantials will be sufficient ground to break Communion and to set up new Churches To understand the consequence we must suppose 1. An agreement in the substantial parts of Worship 2. A Separation for greater parity of Worship And what
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
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
not being confederated themselves can convey a right to their Children About these and other such like Questions those who go upon the Parents Right are in perpetual disputes and can neither give others nor hardly themselves satisfaction about them 2. The consequence of this is that they must baptize many with a doubting mind and must exclude many more than they can baptize For Mr. B. saith if he took a dogmatical faith it self or any short of justifying for the Title and necessary qualifications of them I must admit I would baptize none because I cannot know who hath that dogmatical faith and who not The like others are as ready to say of his serious voluntary not prevalently contradicted practical profession or at least that no man can baptize with a good Conscience till he hath upon good evidence throughly weighed the lives of the Parents and is able to pronounce that the actions of their lives do not prevalently contradict their profession Others must reject all those in whose Parents they do not see positive signs of Grace or are not actually confederated with them And upon all these several bars to the Parents Right how few Children will be left that a man can baptize with a safe Conscience Is not this now a more likely way to reduce the far greatest part of Christianity to Paganism than denying the lawfulness of Separation Thus I have considered this main Scruple against the Vse of entitling and Covenanting Godfathers as Mr. B. calls them and have shewed how little reason there is to make use of this as so great an objection against our Churches Communion As to kneeling at the Communion I find nothing particularly objected against that deserving consideration which I have not answered in another place Mr. A. hath one thing yet more to say against the terms of our Churches Communion viz. that upon the same Reason these are imposed the Church may impose some use of Images Circumcision and the Paschal Lamb. To which I answer 1. That our Question is about Separation from the Communion of our Church on the account of the terms that are imposed and is this a reasonable pretence for men not to do what is required because they do not know what may be required on the same grounds A Father charges his Son to stand with his Hat off before him or else he shall not stay in his House at first the Son demurrs upon putting off his Hat to his Father because he hath some scruples whether putting off the Hat be a lawful ceremony or not not meerly on the account of its significancy but because it seems to him to be giving worship to a Creature This he thinks so weighty a scruple that he charges his Father with Tyranny over his Conscience for imposing such a condition on his continuing in his house and thinks himself sufficiently justified by it in his disobedience and forsaking his Fathers House and drawing away as many of his servants from him as he can infuse this scruple into But let us suppose him brought to understand the difference between Civil and Religious Worship yet he may upon Mr. A.'s grounds still justifie his disobedience For faith he to his Father Why do you require me to put off my Hat in your Presence and to make this the condition of my staying in your House Is it not enough that I own my self to be your Son and ask you blessing Morning and Evening and am very willing to sit at your Table and depend upon you for my subsistence Are not these sufficient Testimonies that I am your Son but you must expect my obedience in such a trifling Ceremony as putting off my Hat You say it is a token of respect I say for that reason I ought not to do it For how do I know when you will have done with your tokens of respect It is true you require no more now but I consider what you may do and for all that I know the next thing you may require me will be to put off my Shoos before you for that is a token of respect in some Countries next you may require me to kiss your Toe for that is a token of respect used some where and who knows what you may come to at last and therefore I am resolved to stop at first and will rather leave your House than be bound to put off my Hat in your Presence Let any one judge whether this be a reasonable ground for such an obstinate disobedience to the Command of his Father Or suppose a Law were made to distinguish the several Companies in London from each other that they should have some Badge upon their Livery Gowns that may represent the Trade and Company they are of would this be thought a just excuse for any mans refusing it to say What do I know how far this imposing Power may go at last it is true the matter is small at present but I consider it is a Badge it is a moral significant ceremony a dangerous teeming thing no man knows what it may bring forth at last for how can I or any man living tell but at last I may be required to wear a Fools Coat Would such an unreasonable jealousie as this justifie such a mans refractoriness in rather choosing to lose the priviledge of his Company than submitting to wear the Badge of it So that the fears of what may be required is no ground for actual disobedience to what is required 2. There can be no reasonable suspicion that our Church should impose any other Ceremonies than what it hath already done supposing that it might do it on the same ground Because the Church hath rather retrenchâ—d than increased Ceremonies as will appear to any one that compares the first and second Liturgies of Edw. 6. And since that time no one new Ceremony hath been required as a condition of Commmunion But besides our Church gives a particular reason against the multiplying of Ceremonies because the very number of them supposing them lawful is a burden of which S. Augustin complained in his time and others had much more cause since and therefore for that cause many were taken away And withall it is declared that Christs Gospel was not to be a Ceremonial Law So that for these reasons there can be no just fears that our Church should contradict her own doctrine which it must do if it increased our Cermonies so as to make a new argument against them from the number of them 3. There is not the same Reason for introducing the things mentioned by Mr. A. as for the Ceremonies in Vse among us For 1. As to the Vse of Images our Church hath fully declared against any Religious Vse of them in the Homilies about the Peril of Idolatry and that from such reasons as cannot extend to our Ceremonies viz. from the express Law of God and the general sense of the Primitive Church which allowed and practised
Churches Or as Mr. B. expresses it The benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did in the Synagogues and Temple in his time though the least defective must be chosen when no such accidental Reasons sway the other way From whence we may take notice 1. That no obligation to the Peace and Vnity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Vnity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church than of the Armenian or Abyssine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer to them than the others are and therefore they can afford it more occasional Communion But I would suppose one of these Men of Catholick Principles to be at Ierusalem where he might have occasional Communion with all sorts of the Eastern Churches and some of the Members of those Churches should Ask him What Church he is Member of If he should Answer He could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none Would they take such a Man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church That they would all agree was no part of Catholick Christianity And I much doubt whether any of them would admit such a one to occasional Communion that could not tell what Church he was Member of For as to the Church of England he declares That he holds only occasional Communion with that as he would do with any other tolerable Churches But Were they not Baptized in this Church and received into Communion with it as Members of it if so then if they Communicate no otherwise with it than as a tolerable defective Church they must renounce their former Membership for that did oblige them to fixed and constant Communion with it And if they do renounce their Membership in this Church their occasional Presence at some duties of Worship can never excuse them from Separation We thank them that they are pleased to account our Churches tolerable but we cannot see how in any tolerable sense they can be accounted Members of our Church so that this great favor of occasional Communion which they do not chuse but submit to for some accidental reasons and some very good occasions is not worth the speaking of among Friends and so far from looking like Communion that it hath hardly the face of a Civility 2. That if the least defective way of Worship is to be chosen as they say then this occasional Communion cannot be lawful above once or twice in a Man's Life For that is sufficient to shew their true Catholick Principles and Mr. B. faith When no such accidental Reasons do sway they are to choose the least defective way of Worship or as Mr. A. speaks To sit down ordinarily with purer Administrations If then a Man be bound out of love to his Soul to prefer the best way of Worship and he judges the way of the Separate Congregations to be such there will arise a difficult case of Conscience concerning the lawfulness of this occasional Communion For the same Reasons which moved him to prefer one Communion above the other will likewise induce him to think himself bound to adhere constantly to the one and to forsake the other And why should a Man that is acquainted with purer Administrations give so much countenance to a defective way of Worship and have any Communion with a Church which walks so disorderly and contrary to the Rules of the Gospel and not reprove her rather by a total forbearance of her Communion And why should not those general Rules of approving the things that are more excellent and holding fast that which is good and not forsaking the Assembling themselves together perswade such a Man that it is not lawful to leave the best Communion meerly to shew what defective and tolerable Church he can communicate with Which is as if a Man should forsake his Muskmelons to let others see what Pumpions he can swallow or to leave wholsom Diet to feed on Mushroms and Trash 3. That here are no bounds set to the Peoples Fancies of Purer Administrations and less defective wayes of Worship So that there can be no stop to Separation in this way Suppose some think our Churches tolerable and Mr. B's or Mr. A's Meetings were eligible but after a while when the first rellish 〈◊〉 they afford occasional Communion to the 〈◊〉 or Quakers and then think their way more 〈◊〉 and the other only tolerable Are not these Men bound to forsake them for the same Reasons by which they were first moved to leave our Communion and joyn with them unless they be secure that the absolute perfection of their way of Worship is so glaringly visible to all Mankind that it is impossible for them either to find or fancy any defect in it Mr. Baxter once very well said Separation will ruin the Separated Churches themselves at last it will admit of no consistency Parties will arise in the Separated Churches and Separate again from them till they are dissolved Why might not R. Williams of New-England mention'd by Mr. B. proceed in his course of Separation from the Church of Salem because he thought he had found out a purer and less defective way of Worship than theirs as well as they might withdraw from our Churches on the like pretence Why might he not go on still refining of Churches till at last he dissolved his Society and declared That every one should have liberty to Worship God according to the light of his own Conscience By which remarkable Instance we see that this Principle when pursued will carry Men at last to the dissolution of all Churches Sect. 6. This I had objected to Mr. B. in my Letter that upon his Principles the People might leave him to Morrow and go to Dr. O. and leave him next week and go to the Anabaptists and from them to the Quakers To which Mr. B. Answers What harm will it do me or them if any hearers go from me as you say to Dr. O. None that I know For as Dr. O. saith Since your Practice is one and the same your Principles must be so also although you choose several wayes of expressing them But Did the whole force of my Argument lie there Did I not mention their going from him to the Anabaptists and Quakers upon the very same ground And Is this a good way of Answering to dissemble the main force of an Argument that something may seem to be said to it I suppose Mr. B's great hast made him leave the best part of the Argument behind him But I desire him calmly to weigh and consider it better whether he doth think it reasonable to suppose that since the Peace and Vnity of the Church is a
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
occasional Communion with us to be lawful should not think themselves obliged to constant Communion From what grounds come they to practise occasional Communion Is it from the Love of Peace and Concord as Mr. B. saith That is a good ground so far as it goes But will it not carry a Man farther if he pursue it as he ought to do What love of Concord is this to be occasionally present at our Churches and at the same time to declare That there is greater purity of Worship and better means of Edification in Separate Congregations The one can never draw Men so much to the love of Concord as the other doth incourage them in the Principles of Separation But if there be an Obligation upon Men to Communicate with the Church they live in notwithstanding the defects and corruptions of it that Obligation can never be discharged by meer occasional Presence at some times and in some Acts of Worship for saith Mr. Ball To use one Ordinance and not another is to make a Schism in the Church The only Example produced to justify such occasional Communion with defective Churches is that our Blessed Saviour did communicate after that manner in the Iewish Synagogues and Temple But this is so far from being true that the old Separatists granted That our Lord Communicated with the Iewish Church in Gods Ordinances living and dying a Member thereof and from thence they prove That the Iewish Church had a right Constitution in our Saviours time And did not he declare That he came not to dissolve the Law but to fulfill it And that he complyed with Iohn 's Baptism because he was to fulfill all righteousness Did he not go up to the Feasts at Ierusalem as a Member of the Iewish Church and frequent the Synagogues Even at the Feast of Dedication though not instituted by the Law he was present as other Iews were Yea Did he not express more than ordinary zeal for purifying the outward parts of the Temple because it was to be a House of Prayer for all Nations Was not this to shew Mens Obligation to come and Worship there as well as that the place was to be kept Sacred for that use And Doth not the Apostle expresly say That he was made under the Law Where is there the least ground in Scripture to intimate that Christ only kept occasional and not constant communion with the Iewish Church What part of Worship did he ever withdraw from Did he not command his Disciples to go hear the Scribes and Pharisees because they sate in Moses Chair Where did he ever bid them go thither when they could have no better but when they could to be sure to prefer the Purer way of Worship and better Means of Edification Was not his own Doctrine incomparably beyond theirs Is there any pretence for greater Edification now to be mention'd with what the Disciples had to forsake the Iewish Assemblies for the love of Christ 's own Teaching Yet he would not have them to do that out of the regard he had to the Publick Worship and Teaching Our Saviour himself did only Teach his Disciples Occasionally and at certain Seasons but their constant Communion was with the Iewish Assemblies And so it was after his Passion till the Holy Ghost feâ—l upon them and they were then imploy'd to gather and form a new Church which was not done before and thence the Author of the Ordinary Glosse observes That we never read of Christ 's Praying together with his Disciples unless perhaps at his Transfiguration with three of his Disciples although we often read of his Praying alone So that no example can be mention'd which is more directly contrary to the Practice of Separation upon the present grounds than that of our Blessed Saviour's which ought to be in stead of all others to us Sect. 19. 2. I argue from the particular force of that Text Phil. 3. 16. As far as we have already attained let us walk by the same Rule let us mind the same things From whence it appears evident that Men ought to go as far as they can towards Vniformity and not to forbear doing any thing which they lawfully may do towards Peace and Vnity To take off the force of the Argument from this place several Answers have been given which I shall now remove so that the strength of it may appear to remain notwithstanding all the attempts which have been made to weaken it Some say That the Apostles words are to be understood of the different attainments Christians had in knowledge and the different conceptions and opinions which they had concerning the Truths of the Gospel Thus Dr. O. understands the Text whose sence is somewhat obscurely and intricately expressed but as far as I can apprehend his meaning he makes this to be the Apostles viz. I. That although the best Christians in this life cannot attain to a full measure and perfection in the comprehension of the Truths of the Gospel or the enjoyment of the things contained in them yet they ought to be pressing continually after it II. That in the common pursuit of this design it is not to be supposed but the Men will come to different attainments have different measures of light and knowledge yea and different conceptions or opinions about these things III. That in this difference of opinions those who differ'd from others should wait on the Teachings of God in that use of the means of Instruction which they enjoy'd IV. That as to their Duty in common to each other as far as they had attained they should walk by the same Rule namely which he had now laid down and mind the same things as he had enjoyned them From whence he infers That these words are so far from being a Foundation to charge them with Schism who agreeing in the substance of the Doctrine of the Gospel do yet dissent from others in some things that it enjoyns a mutual forbearance towards those who are differently minded And again he saith The advice St. Paul gives to both Parties is that whereunto they have attained wherein they do agree which were all those Principles of Faith and Obedience which were necessary to their acceptance with God they should walk by the same Rule and mind the same things that is forbearing one another in the things wherein they differ which saith he is the substance of what is pleaded for by the Non-conformists For the clearing of this matter there are Three things to be debated 1. Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or different practises 2. Whether the Rule he gives be mutual forbearance 3. How far the Apostles Rule hath an influence on our present case First Whether the Apostle speaks of different opinions or of different practises For the right understanding of this we must strictly attend to the Apostles scope and design It is most evident that the Apostle began this Discourse with a Caution