Christian Magistrate was by any Prophet either commanded to deal otherwise than by perswasion in publick Reformation when the Magistrate neglected it or reproved for the contrary Fourthly To the Instance of the Apostles they Answer Two things I. That though they set up Church-Government without the Magistrates leave yet not contrary to his liking or when he opposed his Authority directly and inhibited it they never erected the Discipline when there was so direct an opposition made against it by the Civil Magistrates II. If it could be proved that the Apostles did so then yet would it not follow that we may do so now for neither was the Heathen Magistrate altogether so much to be respected by the Church as the Christian Magistrate is neither have our Ministers and People now so full and absolute a power to pull down and set up Orders in the Church as the Apostles those wise Master-builders had Fifthly As to their Ministers Preaching being Silenced they declare 1. So long as the Bishops Suspend and Deprive according to the Law of the Land we account of the Action herein as of the Act of the Church which we may and ought to reverence and yield unto if they do otherwise we have liberty given us by the Law to appeal from them If it be said the Church is not to be obey'd when it Suspends and deprives us for such causes as we in our Consciences know to be insufficient We Answer That it lieth on them to Depose who may Ordain and they may shut that may open And as he may with a good Conscience execute a Ministery by the Ordination and Calling of the Church who is privy to himself of some unfitness if the Church will press him to it so may he who is privy to himself of no fault that deserveth Deprivation cease from the execution of his Ministery when he is pressed thereunto by the Church And if a guiltless person put out of his Charge by the Churches Authority may yet continue in it What proceedings can there be against guilty persons who in their own conceit are alwayes guiltless or will at least pretend so to be seeing they will be ready alwayes to object against the Churches Iudgment That they are called of God and may not therefore give over the Execution of their Ministery at the will of Bishops 2. That the case of the Apostles was very different from theirs in Three respects First They that Inhibited the Apostles were known and professed enemies to the Gospel Secondly The Apostles were charged not to teach in the Name of Christ nor to publish any part of the Gospel which Commandment might more hardly be yielded unto than this of our Bishops who though they cannot endure them which teach that part of the Truth that concerneth the good Government and Reformation of the Church yet are they not only content that the Gospel should be Preached but are also Preachers of it themselves Thirdly The Apostles received not their Calling and Authority from Men nor by the hands of Men but immediately from God himself and therefore also might not be restrain'd or deposed by Men whereas we though we exercise a Function whereof God is the Author and we are also called of God to it yet are we called and ordained by the hands and Ministery of Men and may therefore by the Ministery of Men be also deposed and restrained from the Exercise of our Ministery To this which I had referred Mr. B. to he gives this Answer If Mr. Rathband hath denied this it had been no proof Did I ever mention Mr. Rathband's Testimony as a sufficient proof My words are That I was certain their Practice was contrary to the Doctrine of all the Non-conformists as you may see in the Book published in their name by Mr. Rathband Can any thing be plainer than that the Book was written by the Non-conformists and that Mr. Rathband was only the Publisher of it This way of Answering is just as if one should quote a passage out of Curcellaeus his Greek Testament and another should reply If Curcellaeus said so it had been no proof Can Mr. B. satisfie his Mind with such Answers When Fr. Iohnson said That our Ministers ought not to suffer themselves to be Silenced and Deposed from their Publick Ministery no not by Lawful Magistrates Mr. Bradshaw Answered This Assertion is false and seditious And when Iohnson saith That the Apostles did not make their immediate Calling from God the ground of their refusal but this that they ought to obey God rather than Man which is a Duty required of all Ministers and Christians Bradshaw a Person formerly in great esteem with Mr. Baxter and highly commended by the Author of the Vindication of his Dispute with Iohnson gives this Answer 1. Though the Apostles did not assign their immediate Calling from God as the Ground of their refusal in so many Letters and Syllables yet that which they do assign is by Implication and in effect the same with it For it is as much as if they had said God himself hath imposed this Calling upon us and not Man and therefore except we should rather obey Man than God we may not forbear this Office which he hath imposed upon us For opposing the Obedience of God to the obedience of Man they therein plead a Calling from God and not from Man otherwise if they had received a Calling from Man there had been incongruity in the Answer considering that in common sense and reason they ought so far forth to obey Men forbidding them to exercise a Calling as they exercise the same by vertue of that Calling Else by this reason a Minister should not cease to Preach upon the Commandment of the Church that hath chosen him but should be bound to give them also the same Answer which the Apostles gave which were absurd So that by this gross conceit of Mr. Johnson there should be no Power in any sort of Men whosoever to depose a Minister from his Ministery but that nowithstanding any Commandment of Church or State the Minister is to continue in his Ministery 2. For the further Answer of this his ignorant conceit plainly tending to Sedition we are to know that though the Apostles Prophets and Evangelists Preached Publickly where they were not hindred by open violence and did not nor might not leave their Ministery upon any Human Authority or Commandment whatsoever because they did not enter into or exercise the same upon the will and pleasure of any Man whatsoever yet they never erected and planted Publick Churches and Ministeries in the Face of the Magistrate whether they would or no or in despite of them but such in respect of the Eye of the Magistrate were as private and invisible as might be 3. Neither were some of the Apostles only forbidden so as others should be suffered to Preach the same Gospel in their places but the utter abolishing of Christian Religion was manifestly
intended in Silencing of them But our Churches whereof we are Ministers are no private and secret Assemblies such as hide themselves from the Face of a persecuting Magistrate and State but are publick professing their Worship and doing their Religion in the face of the Magistrate and State yea and by his Countenance Authority and Protection and we are set over those Churches not only by a Calling of our People but also by the Authority of the Magistrate who hath an Armed Power to hinder any such publick action who is willing also to permit and maintain other true Ministers of the Gospel in those places where he forbiddeth some If therefore after our publick calling to Minister to such a known and Publick Church not by the Church only but by the Magistrate also the Magistrate shall have matter against us whether just or unjust it skilleth not and shall in that regard forbid us to Minister to our Church I see not by what Warrant in Gods Word we should think our selves bound notwithstanding to exercise our Ministery still except we should think such a Law of Ministery to lie upon us that we should judge our selves bound to run upon the Swords point of the Magistrate or to oppose Sword to Sword And suppose the Magistrate should do it unjustly and against the will of the Church and should therein sin yet doth not the Church in that regard cease to be a Churh nor ought she therein to resist the Will of the Magistrate neither doth she stand bound in regard of her affection to her Minister how great and deserving soever to deprive her self of the Protection of the Magistrate by leaving her publick standing to follow his Ministery in private and in the dark refusing the benefit of all other Publick Ministery which with the leave and liking of the Magistrate she may enjoy 4. Neither do I know what warrant any ordinary Minister hath by Gods Word in such a case so to draw any such Church or People to his private Ministery that thereby they should hazard their outward state and quiet in the Common-wealth where they live when in some competent measure they may publickly with the grace and favor of the Magistrate enjoy the ordinary means of Salvation by another and except he have a calling to Minister in some Church he is to be content to live as a private member till it shall please God to reconcile the Magistrate to him and to call him again to his own Church labouring mean while privately upon particular occasions offered to strengthen and confirm in the wayes of God those People that are deprived of his publick Labour And I take it to be the duty of the People in such a Case if they will approve themselves faithful Christians and good Subjects so to submit to the Ministery of another as that by Prayer and all other good dutiful and loyal means they may do their best endeavor to obtain him of whom against their will they have been deprived and still to affect and love him as their Pastor now if the People do thus then is that Minister called to be Silent not only by the Magistrate but by them also though with much grief To this Testimony of Mr. Bradshaw all that Mr. B. saith is That Bradshaw thought we should submit to a Silencing Law where our Ministery was unnecessary and so doth he If Mr. B. did allow himself any time to consider what he writes he would never have given such an Answer as this For Mr. Bradshaw never puts the case upon the necessity or no necessity of their Preaching but upon the allowance or disallowance of the Christian Magistrate And if it had been resolved upon the point of necessity Is it possible for Mr. B. to think there was less necessity of Preaching at that time than there is now when himself confesseth several years since That Thirty years ago there were many bare Reading not Preaching Ministers for one that there is now And what was there which the old Non-conformists more complained of than the want of a more Preaching Ministery This then could not be Mr. Bradshaw's Reason and Mr. Baxter upon second thoughts cannot be of that opinion I have yet one Argument more to prove this to have been the general sense of the Non-conformists which is Mr. Sprints Argument for Conformity in case of Deprivation Which is that where two Duties do meet a greater and a less whereof both cannot be done at the same time the lesser duty must yield unto the greater but this Doctrine of suffering Deprivation for not Conforming teacheth and the practice thereof causeth to neglect a greater duty for performing of a less therefore it seemeth to be an Error in Doctrine and a Sin in Practice The force of which Argument doth necessarily suppose That Ministers deprived by Law are not to exercise their Ministerial Function in opposition to the Law 's And to confirm this several Non-conformists undertook to Answer this Argument and to give an account of the disparity of the case as to the Apostles times and ours For Mr. Sprint had urged the instance of the Apostles to this purpose since they submitted to Iewish Ceremonies rather than lose the liberty of their Ministery they ought to yield to our Ceremonies on the same ground to which they Answer That the Apostles had far greater reason so to do because their Ministery was of far greater excellency and usefulness and therefore the Argument was of much greater weight with the Apostles than it could be with them For say they What one Minister of the Gospel is there that dare be so presumptuous as to say That his Preaching and Ministery can be of that necessity and use for the Glory of God and good of his Church as was the Ministery of his Apostles The work whereunto the Lord called and separated the Apostles viz. the planting of the Church and the Preaching the Gospel to all Nations was such as could not have been performed by any other but the Apostles alone but in deprivation of our Ministers that refuse conformity there is no such danger and of their Preaching there can be no such necessity imagined though they Preach not the Gospel is Preached still and that soundly and fruitfully Did these Men think the Apostles Woe be unto me if I Preach not the Gospel did reach to their case Can Mr. B. imagine that such Men thought themselves still bound to Preach although they were silenced by our Laws And now I hope I have proved that to be evidently True which Mr. B. saith was notoriously false But if after all this Mr. B. will persist in saying That he knew those who did otherwise all that I have to say to it is That I hope Mr. Bs. Acquaintance both of the one and the other Party if they were such as he represents are not to be the Standard for all the rest for it seems he was not very happy in either PART
and an ignorant zeal may perhaps be more edifying to some capacities and to some purposes than judicious and well studied Sermons This Argument must therefore be quitted and they who will defend the present Separation must return to the old Principles of the Separatists if they will justifie their own practices And so I find Mr. B. is forced to do for discerning that the pretence of greater Edification would not hold of it self he adds more weight to it and that comes home to the business viz. That the People doubt of the Calling of the obtruded Men. This is indeed an Argument for Separation and the very same which Barrow and Greenwood and Iohnson and Smith and Can used Now we are come to the old Point of defending the Calling of our Ministry but we are mistaken if we think they now manage it after the same manner We do not hear so much the old terms of a False and Antichristian Ministry but if they do substitute others in their Room as effectual to make a Separation but less fit to justifie it the difference will not appear to be at all to their advantage Sect. 7. 2. I come therefore to consider the Principles of our new Separatists as to the Ministry of our Church and to discover how little they differ from the old Separatists when this matter is throughly enquired into as to the Argument for Separation I. In General they declare That they only look on those as true Churches which have such Pastors whom they approve How oft have I told you saith Mr. B. that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral Office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor And one or other of these he thinks most if not all the Parochial Churches in England fall under You will say then Mr. B. is a Rigid Separatist and thinks it not lawful to joyn with any of our Parochial Congregations but this is contradicted by his own Practice There lies therefore a farther subtilty in this matter for he declares in the same place he can joyn with them notwithstanding But how as true Churches though he saith they are not No but as Chappels and Oratories although they be not Churches as wanting an essential part This will bring the matter to a very good pass the Parish Churches of England shall only be Chappels of Ease to those of the Non-conformists This I confess is a Subtilty beyond the reach of the old Brownists and Non-conformists for they both took it for granted that there was sufficient ground for Separation if our Churches were not true Churches and the Proof of that depended on the Truth of our Ministry Now saith Mr. B. Although our Parochial Congregations be not true Churches because they want an essential part viz. a true Ministry yet he can joyn with them occasionally as Chappels or Oratories From whence it appears that he accounts not our Parochial Churches as true Churches nor doth communicate with them as such but only looks on them as Publick places of Prayer to which a Man may resort upon occasion without owning any relation to the Minister or looking on the Congregation as a Church For where he speaks more fully he declares That he looks on none as true Churches but such as have the Power of the Keys within themselves and hath a Bishop or Pastor over them with that Power and any Parochial Church that hath such a one and ownes it self to be independent he allows to be a true Church and none else So that unless our Parochial Churches and Ministers assume to themselves Episcopal Power in opposition to the present Constitution of our Church as he apprehends he at once discards them all from being true Churches but I shall afterwards discover his mistake as to the nature of our Parochial Churches that which I only insist on now is That he looks on none of them as truly constituted Churches or as he calls it of the Political Organized Form as wanting an essential part viz. a true Pastor From hence it necessarily follows either that Mr. B. communicates with no true Church at all or it must be a Separate Church or if he thinks himself bound to be a Member of a true Church he must proceed to as a great Separation as the old Brownists did by setting up new Churches in opposition to ours It is no sufficient Answer in this case to say That Mr. B. doth it not for we are only to shew what he is obliged to do by vertue of his own Principles which tend to as much Separation as was practised in former times and hath been so often condemned by Mr. B. Sect. 8. II. Suppose they should allow our Parochial Churches in their Constitution to be true Churches yet the exceptions they make against the Ministers of our Churches are so many that they scarce allow any from whom they may not lawfully Separate 1. If the People judge their Ministers unworthy or incompetent they allow them liberty to withdraw and to Separate from them This I shall prove from many passages in several Books of Mr. B. and others First They 〈◊〉 it in the Peoples Power notwithstanding all Legaâ—â—stablishments to own or disown whom they judge sit Mr. B. speaks his Mind very freely against the Rights and â—etronage and the Power of Magistrates in these cases and pleads for the unalterable Rights of the People as the old Separatists did God saith Mr. B. in Nature and Scripture hath given the People that consenting Power antecedent to the Princes determination which none can take from them Mr. A. saith Every particular Church has an inherent right to choose its own Pastors Dr. O. makes the depriving the People of this right one of his grounds of Separation So that although our Ministers have been long in possession of their Places yet if the People have not owned them they are at liberty to choose whom they please How many hundred Congregations saith Mr. B. have Incumbents whom the People never consented to but take them for their hinderers and burden So many hundred Congregations it seems are in readiness for Separation Secondly The People are made Iudges of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers This follows from the former In case incompetent Pastors be set over the People saith Mr. B. though it be half the Parishes in a Kingdom or only the tenth part it is no Schism saith he but a Duty for those that are destitute to get the best supply they can i.e. to choose those whom they judge more competent and it is no Schism but a Duty for faithful Ministers though forbidden by Superiors to perform their Office to such people that desire it This is plain dealing But suppose the Magistrate should cast out
downright with Lying and by consequence with Perjury and tells me of 30 tremendous Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity among which are Lying and Perjury and not only that but drawing on our selves the guilt of many thousand Perjuries by declaring That the Covenant doth not oblige But I do not question if Mr. B. pleased he could find out 40 or 50 as tremendous aggravations of the Sin of Separation For never did any Man lay more load than he upon whatever he opposes without considering how it may fall upon himself at last and How easie it is to return such heaps of Aggravations And it was well said by one of Mr. B's Adversaries concerning him That be the Controversie what it will he can make his Adversary differ with him about the Existence of God and Christ a Heaven and Hell Which I have found too true by my experience in this case for without any colour or pretence in the World that I know of but only by declaring against Separation he tells me That he is so far past doubt on the other side as that he thinks I overthrow all Religion and set up Man in Rebellion against God But the worst is that he would make me say which I never said or thought That all Publick Worship is sinful when forbidden and then on he runs with a mighty torrent Daniel may go to the Lions the Martyrs Fathers Counsels the Vniversal Church are all foolisher than the meanest of his Auditors I wonder he did not give me 30 tremendous aggravations of Atheism and Hobbism For he doth in effect charge me with them For it follows It 's strange that he can be sure God's Word is true and yet be so sure that Mens Laws are above it and may suspend it Did I ever in my life say the least thing tending that way I abhor and detest such Principles as set Mans Laws above Gods And when I gave him the State of the Controversie about Separation I supposed an Agreement in all the Substantials of Religion between the dissenting Parties and our Church How then could he possibly infer from hence that I set Man's Laws above Gods The Question is not Whether all Publick Worship be sinful when forbidden but whether in a Nation professing true Religion some publick Worship may not be forbidden If not then an universal unlimited toleration of Turks Iews Papists Socinians Ranters c. must follow If some may be forbidden then another Question follows viz. Whether such Publick Worship as may have an evil in it antecedent to that Prohibition may not be forbidden viz. such as tends to Idolatry Sedition Schism c. and if this be allowed then it comes to this at last Whether such Meetings are guilty of any of these faults and if they be Whether the Magistrate so judging may not justly forbid them And this is the utmost that matter can be driven to which I here mention to let the Reader understand what little cause there is to dread Mr. B's 30 Aggravations of the Sin of Conformity which are built on as slight grounds as this heavy charge against me for the sake of which I shall hardly ever dread his aggravations more But the sting of these aggravations follows If the People think though they should mistake that all the Conformists are guilty of the like Can you wonder if they prefer less Guilty Pastors to trust the Conduct of their Souls with Now the true Reason of Separation is come out at last Our Conformity is a horrible scandalous sin with them and therefore they must choose better Pastors Is not this just the old Brownists Argument The Ministry of the Church of England is a corrupt and sinful Ministery and therefore we must not communicate with them but choose more honest and faithful Guides But let me ask Mr. B. supposing all this to be true Is it lawful to communicate with Conformists or not If it be not lawful then he condemns his own practice and takes away occasional communion if it be lawful How comes Separation to be lawful since that is never lawful but when it is necessary as it will be proved afterwards Sect. 11. 2. They make most of the present Ministers of the Church of England to be Vsurpers and from such they say they may lawfully separate Is it Separation saith Mr. B. to refuse Pastors that are Vsurpers and have no true Power over them But Who are these Vsurpers among us since we have a legal establishment and we thought Law and Vsurpation contrary to each other But notwithstanding Law it is determin'd First All that come into the places of ejected Ministers are Vsurpers at least to as many of the People as do not consent to their coming in How prove you saith Mr. B. that the relation of the ejected London-Ministers and their Flocks was dissolved and that the succeeders were true Pastors to the Non-consenting Flocks When faithful Pastors saith he in his Plea written in the name of the Party and by consent as he saith of many of his Acquaintance are in possession if a lawful Magistrate cast them out and put others in their places of untried or suspected parts or fidelity I. The Princes Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church before or without the Peoples consent II. Nor will it alwayes bind the People to consent and to forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismaticks because they do it not The bottom of all this is they are Vsurpers to whom the People do not consent in any particular Parish although the whole Nation in Parliament consented to the passing of a Law for removal of some Pastors and putting in of others And what dangerous consequences there may be of such Principles as these I leave others to Judge For upon these grounds when Salomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadok in his room any part of the People might have pleaded They never consented to Zadok 's coming in and therefore he was their High-â—riest still let Salomon do what he would he could not dissolve the relation between them without their own consent For the Question is not Whether Abiathar did not deserve to be put out but to whom it belonged to do it whether to the King or the People And whether any part of the People might still own that relation which he had before to them without palpable disobedience and contempt of Authority Especially if the People had given their own consent and the thing had been done not only by Salomon but by the States of Israel as it was in our case They who discern not the ill consequences of such Assertions as to our Government have very little insight into Affairs For it follows that a small part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and choose other Governors to themselves in opposition to those established by Law and why they should not do it upon an equal pretence in other cases
I do not understand For there is no more colour for the Peoples resuming their right especially a small part against the whole in one case then in the other Which makes me wonder at those who daâ—e call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any Men do enjoy their Estates And they who assert that the people are bound notwithstanding the Laws to adhere to their former Pastors as Mr. A. doth who saith They judge it their unquestionable duty to abide in that relation to their ejected Pastors do not only assert a power in a handful of people to act against established Laws passed by general consent in Parliament but overthrow the settlement of our Church upon the Reformation For the Papists then had the very same Plea that these Men have now vâ—z That the Magistrate could not dissolve the relation between their former Church Guides and them and thereforâ— notwithstanding Acts of Parliament they were still hound to adhere to them For the Magistrate had no power in such matters and the real Schism was to withdraw from those Guides just as Mr. A. speaks concerning the ejected Ministers So much do these Men in pursuing the interests of their Parties overthrow the principles of the Reformation For either the Magistrate hath a Power to Silence some Ministers and to put others in their places or he hath none if he hath none then What becomes of the Iustice of the Reformation when the Popish Bishops and Priests were ejected and others put into their places If they say He hath a just power in some cases but not in theirs Is not this a Plea common to all For whoever thought themselves justly ejected Or that they did any thing which deserved so severe a punishment What then is to be done in this case if Men think themselves unjustly cast out The old Non-conformists said They ought to sit down quietly with this satisfaction that there were others to Preach the Word of God soundly although they did not They might by joyning in their private capacities in Communion with our Churches and drawing the People to it by their example and encouragement have done more good both to the People and to this Church than I fear their publick preaching in opposition to the Laws hath done to either But if they go upon such principles â—s these That the Magistrate had no rightful power to eject them That others are Vsurpers who come in their places That the People are still bound to own them in their former relation notwithstanding the Laws And that 't is Schism to separate from them notwithstanding that they confess the True Religion is maintained and preached in our publick Assemblies I leave it to others to determine how consistent such Principles are with the submission Men owe to Government or that peaceable behaviour which becometh Christians This I the rather insist upon because I find not only Mr. B. and Mr. A. asserting it but that it is made the standing Plea for the necessity of the present Separation among those who do not hold all Communion with our Churches unlawful So the latest of my Answerers makes a Question Whether they can be said to erect new Churches or proceed to the forming of separate Congregations who were true Ministers and had their Congregations before others came into their places If they had done nothing worthy of ejection or exclusion from their Ministry whether they have not still a right to exercise their Function And consequently whether others may not as justly be said to draw away their People from them as they are charged with the same practice There is not one word in all this Plea but might have equally served the Papists in the beginning of the Reformation For the Law signifies nothing with them in any case where themselves are concerned if Ministers be ejected without or against Law they who come into their places are no Usurpers and if they are cast out by Law they that succeed them are Usurpers so that the Law is always the least thing in their consideration Secondly All those who come into any Pastoral charge whether Bishops by vertue of the Kings Nomination or others by the Presentation of Patrons are Vsurpers unless the People be pleased to give their free consent and if they do it not they may lawfully withdraw from them For saith Mr. B. the People have an antecedent Right to consent which none can take from them And he saith he hath proved it by many Canons that he was no Bishop that was not chosen by the Clergy and the People or came in without the Peoples consent Nay if they have the consent of some and not of the greater part those who did not consent may proceed to choose another Bishop if Mr. B. say true For these are his words If a Diocess have a Thousand or 600 or 300 Parish Pastors and a Hundred thousand or a Million of People or 50000 or 20000 as ye will suppose and if only a dozen or 20 Presbyters and a Thousand People or none chuse the Bishop this is not the Election or Consent of the Diocesan Church nor is it Schism for twenty thousand to go against the Votes of two thousand Therefore if they have so much the advantage in polling as Mr. A. suggests there is nothing hinders them but that in spite of Laws they may proceed to the choice of new Bishops and new Pastors of Churches wherever they think they can make the Majority For this is an inherent and unalterable right in the People say they to choose their own Pastors Again saith Mr. B. in the name of the Party in his Plea If Bishops that have no better a Foundation i.e. that come in by the Kings Nomination and not by the Majority of the People shall impose inferior Pastors or Presbyters on the Parish Churches and command the Peoples acceptance and obeâ—â—â—nce i.e. if they give them Institution upon a Patrons presentation the People are not bound to accept and obey them by any Authority that is in that command as such nor is it Schism to disobey it no more than it is Treason to reject the Vsurper of a Kingdom It is plain then all Bishops of the Kings Nomination all Ministers presented by Patrons are meer Vsurpers the People may give them a good Title if they please but they are not to blame if they do it not For in them Mr. B. saith the chief Power is and sometimes he tells them they are bound to Separate however while they do not consent they are no Churches which they are set over and it is no Schism so to pronounce them nor to deny them Communion proper to a Church Is not this an excellent Plea for Peace and the true and only way of Concord which lays the foundation for all imaginable Disorders and Confusions only that they might have some pretence for their present Separation Sect. 12. 3.
then there was no deviation from the unalterable Rules of Christ. Let us therefore impartially consider what the Government of the Church of Carthage then was concerning which these things may be observed 1. That there was a great number of Presbyters belonging to the Church of Carthage and therefore not probable to be one single Congregation This appears from Saint Cyprian's Epistles to them in his retirement In one he gives them advice how to visit the Confessours in Prison which he would have them to doe by turns every one taking a Deacon with him because the change of Persons would be less invidious and considering the number of Confessours and the frequent attendance upon them the number of Presbyters and Deacons must be considerable When he sent Numidicus to be placed among the Presbyters at Carthage he gives this reason of it that he might adorn the plenty of his Presbyters with such worthy men it being now impaired by the fall of some during the persecution In the case of Philumanus Fortunatus and Favorinus he declares he would give no judgment cùm multi adhuc de Clero absentes sint when many of his Clergy were absent And in another Epistle he complains that a great number of his Clergy were absent and the few that were remaining were hardly sufficient for their work At one time Felicissimus and five Presbyters more did break Communion with the Church at Carthage and then he mentions Britius Rogatianus and Numidicus as the chief Presbyters remaining with them besides Deacons and inferiour Ministers About the same time Cornelius Bishop of Rome mentions 46 Presbyters he had with him in that City And in Constantinople of old saith Iustinian in his Novels were 60 Presbyters for in one he saith The custom was to determin the number and in another that 60 was to be the number at Constantinople Let any one now consider whether these Churches that had so many Presbyters were single Congregations and at Carthage we have this evidence of the great numbers of Christians that in the time of Persecution although very many stood firm yet the number of the lapsed was so great that Saint Cyprian saith Every day thousands of Tickets were granted by the Martyrs and Confessours in their behalf for reconciliation to the Church and in one of those Tickets sometimes might be comprehended twenty or thirty persons the form being Communicet ille cum suis. Is it then probable this Church at Carthage should consist of one single Congregation 2. These Presbyters and the whole Church were under the particular care and Government of Saint Cyprian as their Bishop Some of the Presbyters at Carthage took upon them to meddle in the affairs of Discipline without consulting their Bishop then in his retirement Saint Cyprian tells them they neither considered Christ's Command nor their own Place nor the future Iudgment of God nor the Bishop who was set over them and had done that which was never done in foregoing times to challenge those things to themselves with the contempt and reproach of their Bishop which was to receive Penitents to Communion without imposition of hands by the Bishop and his Clergy Wherein he vindicates the Martyrs and Confessours in his following Epistle saying that such an affront to their Bishop was against their will for they sent their Petitions to the Bishop that their Causes might be heard when the Persecution was over In another Epistle to the People of Carthage on the same occasion he complains of these Presbyters that they did not Episcopo honorem Sacerdotii sui Cathedrae reservare reserve to the Bishop the honour which belonged to his Place and therefore charges that nothing further be done in this matter till his return when he might consult with his fellow-Bishops Celerinus sends to Lucian a Confessour to beg him for a Letter of Grace for their Sisters Numeria and Candida who had fallen Lucian returns him answer that Paulus before his Martyrdom had given him Authority to grant such in his Name and that all the Martyrs had agreed to such kindness to be shewed to the lapsed but with this condition that the Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and upon such Discipline as he should impose they were to be received to Communion So that though Lucian was extreamly blamed for relaxing the Discipline of the Church yet neither he nor the other Martyrs would pretend to doe any thing without the Bishop Cyprian gives an account of all that had passed in this matter to Moses and Maximus two Roman Presbyters and Confessours they return him answer that they were very glad he had not been wanting to his Office especially in his severe reproving those who had obtained from Presbyters the Communion of the Church in his absence In his Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage he mightily blames those who communicated with those persons who were reconciled to the Church meerly by Presbyters without him and threatens excommunication to any Presbyters or Deacons who should presume to doe it The Roman Clergy in the vacancy of the See take notice of the discretion of the Martyrs in remitting the lapsed to the Bishop as an argument of their great modesty and that they did not think the Discipline of the Church belonged to them and they declare their resolution to doe nothing in this matter till they had a new Bishop By which we see the Power of Discipline was not then supposed to be in the Congregation or that they were the first subject of the Power of the Keys but that it was in the Bishop as superiour to the Presbyters And that they were then far from thinking it in the Power of the People to appoint and ordain their own Officers Saint Cyprian sends word to the Church of Carthage that he had taken one Aurelius into the Clergy although his general custom was in Ordinations to consult them before and to weigh together the manners and deserts of every one which is quite another thing from an inherent Right to appoint and constitute their own Church-officers the same he doth soon after concerning Celerinus and Numidicus When he could not go among them himself by reason of the persecution he appoints Caldonius and Fortunatus two Bishops and Rogatianus and Numidicus two Presbyters to visit in his name and to take care of the poor and of the persons fit to be promoted to the Clergy Who give an account in the next Epistle that they had excommunicated Felicissimus and his Brethren for their separation 3. That Saint Cyprian did believe that this Authority which he had for governing the Church was not from the Power of the People but from the Institution of Christ. So upon the occasion of the Martyrs invading the Discipline of the Church he produceth that saying of Christ to Saint Peter Thou art Peter c. And
and Councils of old times did usually stile Bishops the Successours of the Apostles without ever scrupling thereat Many other passages might be produced out of those excellent Papers to the same purpose but these are sufficient to discover that our Bishops are looked on as Successours to the Apostles and therefore Mr. Baxter hath no reason to call our Episcopacy a new devised species of Churches and such as destroys the being of Parochial Churches Sect. 14. 3. It now remains that we consider whether the restraint of Discipline in our Parochial Churches doth overthrow their Constitution To make this clear we must understand that the Discipline of the Church either respects the admission of Church-members to the Holy Communion or the casting of them out for Scandal afterwards 1. As to that part of Discipline which respects the admission of Church-members The Rubrick after Confirmation saith That none shall be admitted to the holy Communion untill such time as he be confirmed or be ready and desirous to be confirmed Now to capacitate a person for Confirmation it is necessary that he be able to give an account of the necessary points of the Christian Faith and Practice as they are contained in the Creed the Lord's Prayer the Ten Commandments and the Church Catechism and of his sufficiency herein the Parochial Minister is the Iudge For he is either to bring or send in writing with his hand subscribed thereunto the names of all such persons within his Parish as he shall think fit to be presented to the Bishop to be confirmed Now if this were strictly observed and the Church is not responsible for mens neglect were it not sufficient for the satisfaction of men as to the admission of Church-members to the Lord's Supper And I do not see but the Objections made against the Discipline of this Church might be removed if the things allowed and required by the Rules of it were duly practised and might attain to as great purity as is ever pretended to by the Separate Congregations who now find so much fault for our want of Discipline For even the Churches of New-England do grant that the Infant seed of Confederate visible Believers are members of the same Church with their Parents and when grown up are personally under the Watch Discipline and Government of that Church And that Infants baptized have a right to further privileges if they appear qualified for them And the main of these qualifications are understanding the Doctrine of Faith and publickly professing their assent thereto not scandalous in life and solemnly owning the Covenant before the Church Taking this for the Baptismal Covenant and not their Church Covenant our Church owns the same thing onely it is to be done before the Bishop instead of their Congregation But the Minister is to be judge of the qualifications which Mr. Baxter himself allows in this case Who grants the Profession of Faith to be a Condition of Right before the Church and then adds that such profession is to be tried judged and approved by the Pastours of the Church to whose Office it belongs because to Ministers as such the Keys of the Kingdom of Heaven are committed and they are the Stewards of God's House c. which he there proves at large by many Arguments But he complains of the old careless practice of this excellent duty of Confirmation This is a thing indeed to be lamented that it is too hastily and cursorily performed but let the fault then be laid where it ought to be laid not upon the Church whose Rules are very good but upon those persons in it who slubber over so important a Duty But is it not more becoming Christians in a peaceable and orderly manner to endeavour to retrieve so excellent a means for the Reformation of our Parochial Churches than peevishly to complain of the want of Discipline and to reject Communion with our Church on that account And I shall desire Mr. Baxter to consider his own words That the practice of so much Discipline as we are agreed in is a likelier way to bring us to agreement in the rest than all our disputings will do without it Yea Mr. Baxter grants That the Presbyters of our Church have by the Rubrick the Trial and Approbation of those that are sent to the Bishop for Confirmation and that the Doctrine and Practice of the Church of England is for the Power of Presbyters herein as far as they could desire This is a very fair confession and sufficient to make it appear that our Diocesan Episcopacy doth not overthrow the Power of Presbyters as to this part of Discipline which concerns admission of Church-members to the Communion Sect. 15. 2. As to that part of Church Discipline which respects the rejecting those for Scandal who have been Church-members In case of open and publick Scandal our Church doth allow if not require the Parochial Minister to call and advertise such a one that is guilty of it in any wise not to come to the Lord's Table until he hath openly declared himself to have truly repented and amended his former naughty life that the Congregation may thereby be satisfied which before was offended And in case the offender continue obstinate he may repel him from the Communion but so that after such repelling he give an account to the Ordinary within 14 days and the Ordinary is then to proceed according to the Canon Here is plainly a Power granted to put back any Scandalous Offender from the Sacrament whose faults are so notorious as to give offence to the Congregation but it is not an absolute and unaccountable Power but the Minister is obliged to give account thereof within a limited time to the Ordinary Now wherein is it that our Diocesan Episcopacy destroys the being of Parochial Churches for want of the Power of Discipline Is it that they have not Power to exclude men whether their faults be Scandalous to the Congregation or not Or is it that they are bound to justify what they doe and to prosecute the Person for those faults for which they put him back from the Communion Or is it that they have not Power to proceed to the greater Excommunication that being reserved served to the Bishop upon full hearing of all parties concerned But as long as by the Constitution of our Church every Minister in his Parish hath power to keep back notorious Offenders it will be impossible to prove from other circumstances that the being of our Churches is destroyed by our Diocesan Episcopacy Mr. B. saith that if it could be proved that the lesser excommunication out of our particular Congregations were allowed to the Parish Ministers it would half reconcile him to the English sort of Prelacy but if it be so he hath been in a sleep these 50 years that could never hear or read of any such thing It is strange in all this time he should never reade or consider the
26 Canon which saith that no Minister shall in any wise admit any one of his Flock or under his care to the Communion of the Lord's Supper who is notoriously known to live impenitently in any scandalous Sin This is not in the Reformatio Legum Ecclesiasticarum which he mentions as an abortive thing published by Iohn Fox which last any one that hath seen them knows to be a mistake nor in Dr. Mocket's Book which was burnt yet not so destroyed but with some diligence he might have seen it but it was for nothing of this kind that Book underwent so severe a censure as Mr. B. insinuates but for seeming to incroach too much on the King's Prerogative But I appeal to what Mr. B. calls the Authorized Church Canons which I think are plain in this case But Mr. B. saith this is not the lesser excommunication but a temporary suspension of the Ministers own Act in delivering the Sacrament to such persons Let Mr. B. call it by what name he pleaseth this is certain the Minister is impowred is required to doe this the question then is whether this be not such a Censure of the Church as to suspend notorious Offenders from the Sacrament and that within the Power of the Parochial Minister I grant this is not the lesser excommunication according to the Vse of this Church for that supposeth the sentence passed and is so called by way of distinction from the greater pronounced by the Bishop in Person upon extraordinary occasions But yet it is a Church-censure upon Offenders and was accounted a sort of excommunication by the Ancient Church for those who were in the state of Penitents were then said to be under a kind of excommunication as appears by several passages in S. Augustin produced by Spalatensis to this purpose viz. to prove that there was a penitential excommunication But Mr. B. quotes Albaspinaeus to shew that the old Excommunication did shut persons out from all other Church-communion as well as the Sacrament Which is very true of the greater Excommunication but besides this there were other Censures of the Church upon Offenders whereby they were suspended from full Communion but not debarred the hopes of it upon satisfaction given These were said to be in the state of Penitents It was a favour to the excommunicated to be brought into this state and others were never allowed to hope to be restored to Communion others onely on their death-beds others according to the nature and degrees of their Repentance of which those were left to be Iudges who were particularly intrusted with the care of the Penitents Albaspinaeus grants that as long as men remained Penitents they were actually deprived of the Priviledges of Church-communion but he saith the Penitents were in a middle state between the excommunicated and the faithfull being still Candidates as he calls them so that all that were Penitents were suspended from Communion but not wholly cast out of the Church because the Christians might as freely converse with these as with any but they were not allowed to participate in the Sacred Mysteries But there was no question wherever there was a Power to suspend any Persons from Communion there was a Power of Discipline because the Churches Discipline did not consist merely in the power of Excommunication no more than a Iudges power lies onely in condemning men to be hanged but in so governing the Members of the Church that Scandalous persons may be kept from the greatest Acts of Communion and by Admonition and Counsel be brought to a due preparation for it Since then our Church doth give power to Parochial Ministers to suspend notorious Offenders from the Communion it is thereby evident that it doth not deprive them of all the necessary and essential parts of Church-discipline But saith Mr. B. If a Minister doth publickly admonish another by name not censured by the Ordinary the Lawyers tell him he may have his action against him I answer 1. What need this publick Admonition by name Doth the nature of Church-discipline lie in that Suppose a man be privately and effectually dealt with to withdraw himself is not this sufficient I am sure Saint Augustin took this course with his People at Hippo he perswaded them to examine their own Consciences and if they found themselves guilty of such Crimes as rendred them unfit for the holy Communion he advised them to withdraw themselves from it till by Prayers and Fasting and Alms they had cleansed their Consciences and then they might come to it Here is no publick Admonition by name and in many cases Saint Augustin declares the Church may justly forbear the exercise of Discipline towards Offenders and yet the Church be a true Church and Christians obliged to communicate with it as appears by all his disputes with the Donatists 2. If a restraint be laid on Ministers by Law the question then comes to this whether the obligation to admonish publickly an Offender or to deny him the Sacrament if he will come to it be so great as to bear him out in the violation of a Law made by publick Authority with a design to preserve our Religion But my design is onely to speak to this case so far as the Church is concerned in it Sect. 16. If it be said that notwithstanding this the neglect and abuse of Discipline among us are too great to be justified and too notorious to be concealed I answer 1. That is not our question but whether our Parochial Churches have lost their being for want of the Power of Discipline and whether the Species of our Churches be changed by Diocesan Episcopacy which we have shewed sufficient Reason to deny And what other abuses have crept in ought in an orderly way to be reformed and no good man will deny his assistance in it 2. It is far easier to separate or complain for want of Discipline than to find out a due way to restore it No man hath more set out the almost insuperable difficulties which attend it than Mr. Baxter hath done especially in that it will provoke and exasperate those most who stand in need of it and be most likely to doe good on those who need it least 3. The case of our Churches now is very different from that of the Churches in the Primitive times For the great Reason of Discipline is not that for want of it the Consciences of Fellow-communicants would be defiled for to assert that were Donatism but that the honour of a Christian Society may be maintained If then the Christian Magistrates do take care to vindicate the Churches honour by due punishment of Scandalous Offenders there will appear so much less necessity of restoring the severity of the ancient Discipline To which purpose these words of the Royal Martyr King Charles I. are very considerable But his Majesty seeth no necessity that the Bishops challenge to the Power of Iurisdiction should be at all times as
large as the exercise thereof at some times appeareth to have been the exercise thereof being variable according to the various conditions of the Church in different times And therefore his Majesty doth not believe that the Bishops under Christian Princes do challenge such an amplitude of Iurisdiction to belong unto them in respect of their Episcopal Office precisely as was exercised in the Primitive times by Bishops before the days of Constantine The reason of the difference being evident that in those former times under Pagan Princes the Church was a distinct Body of it self divided from the Common-wealth and so was to be governed by its own Rules and Rulers the Bishops therefore of those times though they had no outward coercive power over mens Persons or Estates yet in as much as every Christian man when he became a Member of the Church did ipso facto and by that his own voluntary Act put himself under their Government they exercised a very large Power of Jurisdiction in spiritualibus in making Ecclesiastical Canons receiving accusations converting the accused examining Witnesses judging of Crimes excluding such as they found guilty of Scandalous offences from the Lord's Supper enjoyning Penances upon them casting them out of the Church receiving them again upon their Repentance c. And all this they exercised as well over Presbyters as others But after that the Church under Christian Princes began to be incorporated into the Common-wealth whereupon there must of necessity follow a complication of the Civil and Ecclesiastical Power the Iurisdiction of Bishops in the outward exercise of it was subordinate unto and limitable by the Supreme Civil Power and hath been and is at this day so acknowledged by the Bishops of this Realm 4. The due exercise of Discipline is a work of so much prudence and difficulty that the greatest Zealots for it have not thought it fit to be trusted in the hands of every Parochial Minister and his particular Congregation Calvin declares that he never thought it convenient that every Minister should have the power of Excommunication not onely because of the invidiousness of the thing and the danger of the example but because of the great abuses and Tyranny it may soon fall into and because it was contrary to the Apostolical Practice And to the same purpose Beza delivers his judgment who likewise gives this account of the Discipline of Geneva that the Parochial Ministers and Elders proceed no farther than Admonition but in case of Contumacy they certify the Presbytery of the City which sits at certain times and hears all Causes relating to Discipline and as they judge fit either give admonition or proceed to suspension from the Lord's Supper or which is a rare case and when no other remedy can prevail they go on to publick Excommunication Where we see every Parochial Church is no more trusted with the Power of Discipline than among us nay the Minister here hath no power to repel but all that he can doe there is to admonish and how come then their Parochial Churches to be true and not ours Besides why may not our Ministers be obliged to certify the Bishop as well as theirs to certify the Presbytery since in the African Churches the matter of Discipline was so much reserved to the Bishop that a Presbyter had no power to receive a Penitent into the Communion of the Church without the advice and direction of the Bishop and Saint Augustin proposed it that whosoever received one that declined the judgment of his own Bishop should undergoe the same censure which that person deserved and it was allowed by the Council Alipius Saint Augustins great Friend and Legat of the Province of Numidia proposed the case of a Presbyter under the censure of his Bishop who out of pride and vain-glory sets up a separate Congregation in opposition to the Order of the Church and he desired to know the judgment of the Council about it and they unanimously determined that he was guilty of Schism and ought to be anathematized and to lose his place And this was the Iudgment even of the African Bishops for whom Mr. Baxter professeth greater reverence than for any others and saith their Councils were the best in the world and commends their Canons for very good about Discipline But he pretends that a Bishop's Diocese there was but like one of our Parishes which I have already refuted at large by shewing that there were places at a considerable distance under the care of the Bishops So that the bringing the full power of Discipline into every Parochial Church is contrary to the practice of Antiquity as well as of the Reformed Churches abroad which plead most for Discipline and would unavoidably be the occasion of great and scandalous disorders by the ill management of the Power of Excommunication as was most evident by the Separatists when they took this Sword into their hands and by their foolish and passionate and indiscreet use of it brought more dishonour upon their Churches than if they had never meddled with it at all And in such a matter where the honour of the Christian Society is the chief thing concerned it becomes wise men to consider what tends most to the promoting of that and whether the good men promise themselves by Discipline will countervail the Schisms and Contentions the heart-burnings and animosities which would follow the Parochial exercise of it The dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration do say That they had the fatal miscarriages and shipwrecks of the separation as Land-marks to forewarn them of the rocks and shelves they ran upon and therefore they say they never exercised the Power of Excommunication For they saw plainly they could never hold their People together if they did since the excommunicated party would be sure to make friends enough at least to make breaches among them and they holding together by mutual consent such ruptures would soon break their Churches to pieces Besides this would be thought no less than setting up an Arbitrary Court of Iudicature in every Parish because there are no certain Rules to proceed by no standing determination what those sins and faults are which should deserve excommunication no method of trials agreed upon no security against false Witnesses no limitation of Causes no liberty of Appeals if Parochial Churches be the onely instituted Churches as Mr. Baxter affirms besides multitudes of other inconveniencies which may be easily foreseen so that I do not question but if Mr. Baxter had the management of this Parochial Discipline in any one Parish in London and proceeded by his own Rules his Court of Discipline would be cried out upon in a short time as more arbitrary and tyrannical than any Bishop's Court this day in England Let any one therefore judge how reasonable it is for him to overthrow the being of our Parochial Churches for want of that which being set up according to his own principles
Theophylact. And both have it from Saint Chrysostom So it is said concerning Timothy himself 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Who had a good Testimony from the Brethren in Lystra and Iconium And this is mentioned before Saint Paul's taking him into the Office of an Evangelist So in the choice of the Deacons the Apostles bid them find out 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 men of good reputation among them And there is a very considerable Testimony in the Epistle of Clemens to this purpose where he gives an account how the Apostles preaching through Cities and Countries did appoint their First-fruits having made a spiritual trial of them to be Bishops and Deacons of those who were to believe Here it is plain that they were of the Apostles appointment and not of the Peoples choice and that their Authority could not be from them whom they were appointed first to convert and then to govern and although their number was but small at first yet as they increased though into many Congregations they were still to be under the Government of those whom the Apostles appointed over them And then he shews how those who had received this Power from God came to appoint others and he brings the Instance of Moses when there was an emulation among the Tribes what method he took for putting an end to it by the blossoming of Aarons Rod which saith he Moses did on purpose to prevent confusion in Israel and thereby to bring Glory to God now saith he the Apostles foresaw the contentions that would be about the name of Episcopacy 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. about the choice of men into that Office of Ruling the Church which the sense shews to be his meaning therefore foreseeing these things perfectly they appointed the persons before mentioned and left the distribution of their Offices with this instruction that as some died other approved men should be chosen into their Office Those therefore who were appointed by them or other eminent Men the whole Church being therewith well-pleased discharging their Office with humility quietness readiness and unblameableness being men of a long time of good report we think such men cannot justly be cast out of their Office It seems some of the Church of Corinth were at that time factious against some Officers in their Church and endeavoured to throw them out for the sake of one or two more and made such a disturbance thereby as had brought a great scandal not onely on themselves but the Christian Church which made Clemens write this Epistle to them wherein he adviseth those busie men rather to leave the Church themselves than to continue making such a disturbance in it and if they were good Christians they would do so and bring more glory to God by it than by all their heat and contentions Now by this discourse of Clemens it is plain 1. That these Officers of the Church were not chosen by the People but appointed by the Apostles or other great Men according to their Order 2. That they took this course on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen in the Church about those who should bear Office in it 3. That all that the People had to doe was to give Testimony or to express their approbation of those who were so appointed For he could not allow their power of choosing since he saith the Apostles appointed Officers on purpose to prevent the contentions that might happen about it And it seems very probable to me that this was one great reason of the faction among them viz. that those few Popular men in that Church who caused all the disturbance represented this as a great grievance to them that their Pastours and Officers were appointed by others and not chosen by themselves For they had no objection against the Presbyters themselves being allowed to be men of unblameable lives yet a contention there was and that about casting them out and such a contention as the Apostles designed to prevent by appointing a succession from such whom themselves ordainâ—d and therefore it is very â—ikely they challenged this power to themselves to cast out those whom they had not chosen But it seems the Apostles knowing what contentions would follow in the Church took 〈…〉 them leaving to the People their Testimony concerning those whom they ordained And this is plain even from Saint Cyprian where he discourseth of this matter in that very Epistle concerning Basilides and Martialis to which Mr. Baxter refers me For the force of what Saint Cyprian saith comes at last onely to this giving Testimony therefore saith he God appointed the Priest to be appointed before all the People thereby shewing that Ordinations in the Christian Church ought to be sub Populi Assistentis Conscientiâ in the Presence of the People for what reason that they might give them Power no that was never done under the Law nor then imagined when S. Cyprian wrote but he gives the account of it himself that by their presence either their faults might be published or their good acts commended that so it may appear to be a just and lawfull Ordination which hath been examined by the suffrage and judgment of all The People here had a share in the Election but it was in matter of Testimony concerning the good or ill behaviour of the Person And therefore he saith it was almost a general Custom among them and he thinks came down from Divine Tradition and Apostolical Practice that when any People wanted a Bishop the neighbour Bishops met together in that place and the new Bishop was chosen plebe praesente the People being present not by the Votes of the People quae singulorum vitam plenissimè novit which best understands every mans Conversation and this he saith was observed in the Consecration of their Fellow-bishop Sabinus who was put into the place of Basilides Where he doth express the Consent of the People but he requires the Iudgment of the Bishops which being thus performed he incourages the People to withdraw from Basilides and to adhere to Sabinus For Basilides having fallen foully into Idolatry and joyned blasphemy with it had of his own accord laid down his Bishoprick and desired onely to be received to Lay-Communion upon this Sabinus was consecrated Bishop in his room after which Basilides goes to Rome and there engages the Bishop to interpose in his behalf that he might be restored Sabinus finding this makes his application to Saint Cyprian and the African Bishops who write this Epistle to the People to withdraw from Basilides saying that it belonged chiefly to them to choose the good and to refuse the bad Which is the strongest Testimony in Antiquity for the Peoples Power and yet here we are to consider 1. It was in a case where a Bishop had voluntarily resigned 2. Another Bishop was put into his room not by the Power of the People but by the judgment and Ordination of the neighbour Bishops 3. They
takes notice of and the rest do not for else he offers little or nothing but what is in the others which is that when I say our differences are condemned by the wiser Protestants abroad he saith if it be so they may thank their Friends at home that have misrepresented them to the World Therefore to give satisfaction as to the judgment of some of the most eminent and learned Protestant Divines abroad now-living I have subjoyned to the following Treatise some late Letters of theirs to a Person of great Honor and Dignity in our Church to shew the Unlawfulness of Separation from the Communion of the Church of England Which were not written by such who had only a partial representation from others at a distance but two of them by those who have been among us and have been curious observers both of the Separate Meetings and of the Customs of our Churches and the Third by the Famous and Excellent Monsieur Claude And iâ— a Council could be called of all the Protestant Churches in Christendom we should not doubt of their Determination of the Unlawfulness of the Present Separation But before I conclude this Preface there is a great Objection yet to be removed which concerns the Time of Publishing this Treatise which some do seem to think to be very unseasonable when there is so much talk of Union among Protestants and there appears a more General Inclination to it than formerly And what say they can the laying open the Weakness of Dissenters tend to but to Provoke and Exasperate them and consequently to obstruct the Union so much desired In so doing I shall appear to resent more the Injuries done to my Self than the Mischief which may come to the Protestant Religion if this opportunity be not embraced for making an Union among Protestants This is the force of the Objection To which I Answer God forbid that I should either design or do any thing which tended to obstruct so Blessed a Work as a Firm and Lasting Vnion among Protestants would be But my Business is to shew the Vnreasonableness of those Principles and Practises which hinder Men from such an Vnion and lay a Foundation for Perpetual and Endless Separations For upon the Principles laid down by some of our Dissenting Brethren let the Constitution be made never so easie to themselves yet others may make use of their Grounds and carry on the Differences as high as ever Which will render all Attempts of Vnion vain and leave the same Weapons ready to be taken up by others If the Vnion so much talked of be such as tends to the lessening and not to the increasing of our Differences if it be for strengthning and supporting the Protestant Religion and not rather for weaking and betraying it by laying it more open to the Assaults of our Enemies no Man shall be more ready to promote it than I no Man will rejoyce more in the Accomplishment of it But universal liberty is quite another thing from Union as much as looseing is from binding up and it is strange if that which the Papists not long since thought the best means to bring in Popery should now be looked on as the most effectual way to keep it out But suppose the Indulgence be at present strictly limited to Dissenting Protestants are we sure it shall always so continue Will not the same Reasons as to scruple of Conscience suffering for Religion c. extend farther when occasion serves and the Popish Religion get footing on the Dissenters grounds Where hath the Church of Rome more Labourers and a greater harvest than under the greatest Liberty of Conscience Let the State of the Northern Kingdoms as to this matter be Compared with the Number of Papists in the United Provinces And it will be found impossible to Root out Popery where Toleration is allowed 1 Because of the various ways of creeping in under several disguises which the Priests and Jesuits have and can never be prevented where there is a general Indulgence for Dissenters and an unaccountable Church Power is allowed to separate Congregations 2 Because it will be thought great hardship when Mens heats are over for them only to be deprived of the Liberty of their Consciences when the wildest Fanaticks are allowed it 3 Because the diversity of Sects which will be kept up by this means will be always thought a plausible argument to draw Men to the Popish pretences of Unity 4 Because the allowed Sects will in probability grow more insolent upon a Legal Indulgence and bid defiance to the settled Constitution as we have seen already by the yet visible effects of the former Indulgence If Laws would alter the temper of Mens minds and make proud selfwilled froward and passionate Men become meek and humble gentle and peaceable then it were great pitty some Men had not had the Law on their side long ago But is this to be looked for are we to expect the Laws of Men should work more upon them than the Grace of God If such then continue peevish and quarelsome full of wrath and bitterness against all that are not of their minds and they meet with Men as froward and contentious as themselves will this look like the Union of Protestants And By-standers will be apt to say if this be all that you mean by Union of Protestants viz. a Liberty to Pray and Preach and to Write and Dispute one against another there seems to be much more of sense and reason in the Papal pretence to Unity and Infallibility But what then Is there nothing to be done for Dissenting Protestants who agree with us in all Doctrinal Articles of our Church and only scruple the use of a few Ceremonies and some late Impositions shall these differences still be continued when they may be so easily removed And so many useful Men be incouraged and taken into the Constitution Do we value a few indifferent Ceremonies and some late Declarations and doubtful expressions beyond the satisfaction of Mens Consciences and the Peace and Stability of this Church As to this material Question I shall crave leave to deliver my opinion freely and impartially and that I. With respect to the Case of the People the Terms of whose Union with us is acknowledged by our Brethren to be so much easier than their own But these are of two sorts 1. Some allow the use of the Liturgy but say they cannot joyn in Communion with us because the participation of the Sacraments hath such Rites and Ceremonies annexed to it which they think unlawful and therefore till these be removed or left indifferent they dare not joyn with us in Baptism or the Lords Supper because in the one the Cross is used and in the other Kneeling is required As to these I answer 1 Upon the most diligent search I could make into these things I find no good ground for any scruple of Conscience as to the use of these Ceremonies and as little as any
up Scholars or to teach Gentlemens Sons University Learning because this may be justly looked on as a design to propagate Schism to Posterity and to lay a Foundation for the disturbance of future Generations II. As to the Case of the ejected Mininisters I have these things to offer 1. That bare subscription of the Thirty six Articles concerning doctrinal Points be not allowed as sufficient to qualifie any man for a Living or any Church-preferment for these Reasons First Any Lay-man upon these Terms may not only be capable of a Living but may take upon him to Administer the Sacraments which was never allowed in any well constituted Church in the Christian World And such an allowance among us in stead of setling and uniting us will immediately bring things into great confusion and give mighty advantage to the Papists against our Church And we have reason to fear a Design of this Nature under a pretence of Union of Protestants tends to the subversion of this Church and throwing all things into confusion which at last will end in Popery Secondly This will bring a Faction into the Church which will more endanger it than external opposition For such Men will come in triumphantly having beaten down three of the Thirty nine Articles and being in legal possession of their Places will be ready to dâ—fie and contemn those who submitted to the rest and to glory in their Conquests and draw Followers after them as the victorious Confessors against Prelacy and Ceremonies And can they imagin those of the Church of England will see the Reputation of the Church or their own to suffer so much and not appear in their own Vindication Things are not come to that pass nor will they suddenly be that the Friends of the Church of England will be either afraid or ashamed to own her Cause We do heartily and sincerely desire Union with our Brethren if it may be had on just and reasonable Terms but they must not think that we will give up the Cause of the Church for it so as to condemn its Constitution or make the Ceremonies unlawful which have been hitherto observed and practised in it If any Expedient can be found out for the ease of other Mens Consciences without reflecting on our own if they can be taken in without reproach or dishonour to the Reformation of the Church I hope no true Son of the Church of England will oppose it But if the Design be to bring them in as a Faction to bridle and controll the Episcopal Power by setting up forty Bishops in a Diocese against one if it be for them to trample upon the Church of England and not to submit to its Order and Government upon fair and moderate terms let them not call this a Design of Union but the giving Law to a Party to oppose the Church of England And what the success of this will be let wise Men judge Thirdly If a subcription to Thirty six Articles were sufficient by the Statute 13 El. c. 12. I do not understand how by virtue of that Statute a Man is bound publickly to read the Thirty nine Articles in the Church and the Testimonial of his Subscription on pain of being deprived ipso facto if he do not For the L. Ch. I. Coke faith That subscription to the 39 Articles is required by force of of the Act of Parliament 13 Eliz. c. 12. And he adds That the Delinquent is disabled and deprived ipso facto and that a conditional subscription to them was not sufficient was resolved by all the Judges in England But how a Man should be deprived ipso facto for not subscribing and Reading the 39 Articles as appears by the Cases mentioned in Coke and yet be required onely to subscribe to 36 by the same Statute is a thing too hard for me to conceive 2. But notwithstanding this if any temper can be found out as to the manner of Subscription that may give ease to the scruples of our Brethren and secure the Peace of the Church the desired Union may be attained without that apparent danger of increasing the Factions among us And this I suppose may be done by an absolute subscription to all those Articles which concern the Doctrine of the true Christian Faith and the Use of the Sacraments and a solemn Promise under their hand or Subscription of Peaceable submission as to the rest so as not to oppose or contradict them either in Preaching or Writing upon the same penalty as if they had not subscribed to the 36. Which may be a more probable means to keep the Church in quiet than forceing a more rigorous subscription upon them or leaving them at their full liberty 3. As to the other subscription required 1. Jac. to the 3 Articles The first is provided for by the Oaths of Allegiance and Supremacy The third is the same with the subscription to the 39 Articles And as to the second about the Book of Common Prayer c. It ought to be considered 1 Whether for the satisfaction of the scrupulous some more doubtful and obscure passages may not yet be explained or amended Whether the New Translation of the Psalms were not fitter to be used at least in Parochial Churches Whether portions of Canonical Scripture were not better put in stead of Apocrypha Lessons Whether the Rubrick about Salvation of Infants might not be restored to its former place in the Office of Confirmation and so the present exceptions against it be removed Whether those expressions which suppose the strict exercise of Discipline in Burying the Dead were not better left at liberty in our present Case Such a Review made by Wise and Peaceable Men not given to Wrath and Disputing may be so far from being a dishonour to this Church that it may add to the Glory of it 2 Upon such a Review whether it be not great Reason that all Persons who Officiate in the Church be not only tied to a constant Use of it in all Publick Offices as often as they administer them which they ought in Person frequently to do but to declare at their first entrance upon a Parochial Charge their approbation of the Use of it after their own Reading of it that so the People may not suspect them to carry on a factious Design under an outward pretence of Conformity to the Rules of the Church they live in 3 Whether such a solemn Using the Liturgy and approbation and promise of the Use of it may not be sufficient in stead of the late Form of declaring their Assent and Consent which hath been so much scrupled by our Brethren These are all the things which appear to me reasonable to be allowed in order to an Union and which I suppose may be granted without detriment or dishonour to our Church There are other things very desireable towards the happiness and flourishing of this Church as the exercise of Discipline in Parochial Churches in a due subordination to
the Bishop the Reforming the Ecclesiastical Courts as to Excommunication without prejudice to the excellent Profession of the Civil Law the Building of more Churches in great Parishes especially about the City of London the retrenching Pluralities the strictness and solemnity of Ordinations the making a Book of Canons suitable to this Age for the better Regulating the Conversations of the Clergy Such things as these might facilitate our Union and make our Church in spite of all its Enemies become a Praise in the whole Earth The Zeal I have for the true Protestant Religion for the Honour of this Church and for a firm Union among Brethren hath Transported me beyond the bounds of a Preface Which I do now conclude with my hearty Prayers to Almighty God that he who is the God of Peace and the Fountain of Wisdom would so direct the Counsels of those in Authority and incline the hearts of the People that we may neither run into a Wilderness of Confusion nor be driven into the Abysse of Popery but that the true Religion being preserved among us we may with one heart and mind serve the only true God through his only Son Jesus Christ the Prince of Peace and our alone Advocate and Mediator Amen The Contents PART I. An Historical Account of the Rise and Progress of Separation § 1. No Separation in the beginning of the Reformation although there were then the same Reasons which are now pleaded The Terms of Communion being the same which were required by the Martyrs in Queen Maries days § 3. A true account of the Troubles of Francfurt Mr. B's mistake about them § 4. The first causes of the dislike of our Ceremonies § 5. The Reasons of retaining them at the time of Reformation § 6. The Tendencies to Separation checked by Beza and other Reformed Divines abroad § 7. The Heats of the Nonconformists gave occasion to Separation § 8. Their zele against it notwithstanding their representing the sinfulness and mischief of it § 9 10. The true state of the Controversie between the Separatists and Nonconformists § 11. Their Answers to the Separatists Reasons § 12. The progress of Separation The Schisms and Divisions among the Separatists the occasion of Independency That makes Separation more inexcusable by owning some of our Churches to be true Churches § 13. The mischiefs which followed Independency both abroad and § 14. hither into England § 15. The Controversie stated between the Divines of the Assembly and the Dissenting Brethren § 16. The cause of the Assembly given up by the present Dissenters § 17. The old Nonconformists Iudgment of the unlawfulness of mens preaching here when forbidden by Laws fully cleared from some late Objections PART II. Of the Nature of the present Separation § 1. The different Principles of Separation laid down The things agreed on with respect to our Church § 2. The largeness of Parishes a mere Colour and Pretence shewed from Mr. B's own words § 3. The Mystery of the Presbyterian Separation opened § 4. The Principles of it as to the People Of occasional Communion how far owned and of what force in this matter shewed from parallel cases § 5. The reasons for this occasional Communion examined § 6. Of the pretence of greater Edification in separate Meetings never allowed by the Separatists or Independents as a reason for Separation No reason for this pretence sheâ—ed from Mr. B's words § 7. The Principles of Separation as to the Ministry of our Churches Of joyning with our Churches as Oratories § 8. Of the Peoples judging of the worthiness and competency of their Ministers Mr. B's Character of the People The impertinency of this Plea as to the London Separation § 9. The absurdity of allowing this liberty to separate from Mr. B's own words § 10. The allowance be gives for Separation on the account of Conformity What publick Worship may be forbidden § 11. The Ministry of our Church charged with Usurpation in many cases and Separation allowed on that account § 12. Of Separation from Ithacian Prelatists § 13. That the Schism doth not always lie on the Imposers side where the terms of Communion are thought sinful § 14. The Principles of the Independent Separation or of those who hold all Communion with our Church unlawful § 15. The nature of Separation stated and explained § 16. The charge of Separation made good against those who hold Occasional Communion lawful § 17. The obligation to constant Communion where Occasional Communion is allowed to be lawful at large proved § 18. The Objection from our Saviours practice answered § 19. The text Phil. 3. 16. cleared from all Objections § 20. A new Exposition of that text shewed to be impertinent § 21. The charge of Separation proved against those who hold all Communion with us unlawful § 22 23. The mischief brought upon the Cause of the Reformation by it The testimonies of forein Protestant Divines to that purpose § 24. No possibility of Union among the Protestant Churches upon their grounds which hath been much wished for and desired by the best Protestants § 25. All the ancient Schisms justifiable on the same pretences § 26. There can be no end of Separation on the like grounds Mr. A's Plea for Schism at large considered § 27. The Obligation on Christians to preserve the Peace and Unity of the Church The Cases mentioned wherein Separation is allowed by the Scripture In all others it is proved to be a great sin PART III. Of the Pleas for the present Separation Sect. 1. The Plea for Separation from the Constitution of the Parochial Churches considered Sect. 2. Iustice Hobart's Testimony for Congregational Churches answered Sect. 3. No Evidence in Antiquity for Independent Congregations Sect. 4. The Church of Carthage governed by Episcopal Power and not Democratical in S. Cyprian's time Sect. 5 6. No evidence in Scripture of more Churches than one in a City though there be of more Congregations Sect. 7. No Rule in Scripture to commit church-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
themselves from the Society of other Christians they not only Condemned them but also the whole State of the Church Reformed in King Edward's dayes which was well Reformed according to the word of God yea and many Good Men have shed their Blood for the same which your doings Condemn Have ye not saith he the Gospel truly Preached and the Sacraments Ministred accordingly and good order kept although we differ from other Churches in Ceremonies and in indifferent things which lie in the Princes Power to Command for Order sake To which one of them Answered That as long as they might have the Word freely Preached and the Sacraments Administred without the preferring of Idolatrous Gear about it they never assembled together in Houses but their Preachers being displaced by Law for their Non-conformity they be thought themselves what was best for them to do and calling to mind that there was a Congregation there in the dayes of Queen Mary which followed the Order of Geneva they took up that and this Book and Order saith he we hold Another Answered That they did not refuse Communion for Preaching the Word but because they had tied the Ceremonies of Antichrist to it and set them up before it so that no Man may Preach or Minister the Sacraments without them Things being come to this height and Separation beginnâ—ng to break out the Wiser Brethren thought not fit to proceed any farther till they had Consulted their Oracle at Geneva Beza being often solicited by them with doleful Complaints of their hard usage and the different Opinions among themselves what they were to do at last resolves to Answer but first he declares How unwilling he was to interpose in the Differences of another Church especially when but one Party was heard and he was afraid this was only the way to exasperate and provoke more rather than Cure this evil which he thought was not otherwise to be Cured but Precibus Patientiâ by Prayers and Patience After this General Advice Beza freely declares his own judgment as to the Reformation of several things he thought amiss in our Church but as to the case of the Silenced Preachers and the Peoples Separation he expresses his Mind in that manner that the Dissenters at this day would have published their Invectives against him one upon the back of another For 1. As to the Silenced Ministers he saith That if the Pressing Subscription continued he perswades them rather to live privately than to yield to it For they must either act against their Consciences or they must quit their Imployments for saith he the Third thing that may be supposed viz. That they should exercise their Function against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops we Tremble at the Thoughts of it for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them What! Is Beza for Silencing and stopping the Mouths of such a number of Faithful and able Ministers and at such a time when the Church was in so great Necessity of Preaching and so many Souls like to be famished for the want of it when St. Antholins St. Peters St. Bartholomews at which Gilby saith their great Preaching then was were like to be left destitute of such Men Would Beza even Beza at such a time as that be for Silencing so many Preachers i. e. for their sitting quiet when the Law had done it And would not he suffer them to Preach when they ought to have done it though against the Will of the Queen and the Bishops It appears that Beza was not of the Mind of our Adversaries but that he was of the contrary it appears plainly by this That before he Perswades the Dissenting Ministers rather to live privately than to subscribe and that he expresses no such terrible apprehensions at their quitting their Places as he doth at their Preaching in Opposition to the Laws 2 As to the case of the People his Advice was As long as the Doctrine was sound that they should diligently attend upon it and receive the Sacraments devoutly and to joyn Amendment of Life with their Prayers that by those means they might obtain a through Reformation So that nothing can be more express against Sâ—paration than what is here said by Beza for even as to the Ministers he saith Though he did not approve the Ceremonies yet since they are not of the nature of things evil in themselves he doth not think them of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them or that the People should forsake the Ordinances rather than hear those who did Conform Than which words nothing can be plainer against Separation And it further appears by Beza ' s Resolution of a case concerning a Schism in the French Church then in London That he looked on it as a Sin for any one to Separate from a Church wherein Sound Doctrine and a Holy Life and the Right use of the Sacraments is kept up And by Separation he saith he means Not meerly going from one Church to another but the Discontinuing Communion with the Publick Assemblies as though one were no Member of them Beza's Authority being so great with the Dissenting Brethren at that time seems to have put an effectual Stop to the Course of Separation which they were many of them then inclined to But he was not alone among the Foreign Divines who about that time expressed themselves against Separation from the Communion of our Church notwithstanding the Rites and Ceremonies herein used For Gualter a Divine of good Reputation in the Helvetian Churches takes an occasion in an Epistle to several of our Bishops to talke of the Difference then about these things and he extremely blames the Morose humor of those who disturbed the Church for the sake of such things and gave an occasion thereby to endless Separations And in an Epistle to Cox Bishop of Ely 1572. he tells him How much they had disswaded them from making such a stir in the Church about Matters of no moment and he Complains grievously of the Lies and Prejudices against our Church which they had sent Men on purpose to possess them with both at Geneva and other places Zanchy upon great Sollicitation wrote an earnest Letter to the Queen to remove the Ceremonies but withal he sent another to Bishop Iewel to perswade the Non-conformists if the Queen could not be moved not to leave their Churches on such accounts which for his part he did not understand how any could lawfully do as long as they had otherwise liberty to Preach the Gospel and Administer the Sacraments although they were forced to do something therein which did not please them as long as the things were of that kind which in themselves were neither good nor evil And the same Reason will much more hold against the Peoples Sâ—paration Sect. 7. But about this time the dissenting party much increasing and most of the old and peaceable Non-conformists
Bâ—ll are there taught directly contrary to the foundation of Popery that it is not possible Popery should stand if they take place And saith he it is more proper to say the Mass was added to our Common Prayer than that our Common Prayer was taken out of the Mass Book for most things in our Common Prayer were to be found in the Liturgies of the Church long before the Mass was heard of in the World 4. As to the Fasts and Feasts and Ceremonies retained they Answer That what was Antichristian in them was the Doctrine upon which those Practices were built in the Church of Rome which being taken away by the Reformation the things themselves are not Antichristian As namely saith Giffard the Remission of Sins and Merit of Eternal Life by Fasting which is the Doctrine of the Romish Church the Worship and Invocation of Saints and Angels the Power of expelling Devils by the Sign of the Cross and such like things which the Papacy is full of but rejected by us III. That our Ministery was Antichristian To this they Answer 1. That Antichrist is described in Scripture not by his unlawful outward Calling or Office that he should exercise in the Church but First by the False Doctrine he should Teach and Secondly by the Authority he should Vsurp to give Laws to Mens Consciences and to Rule in the hearts of Men as God Which two Marks of Antichrist as they may evidently be discerned in the Papacy so admit all the outward Callings and Offices in the Church of England exercised were faulty and unwarrantable by the Word yet you in your own Conscience know that these Marks of Antichrist cannot be found among the worst of our Ministers For neither do the Laws of our Church allow any to teach False Doctrine and we all Profess Christ to be the only Law-giver to Conscience neither is any thing among us urged to be done upon pain of Damnation but only the Word and Law of God 2. That the Office which our Laws call the Office of Priesthood is the very same in substance with the Pastors Office described in the Word and the manner of outward Calling unto that Office which the Law alloweth is the very same in substance which is set down in the VVord Doth the VVord enjoyn the Minister to Teach diligently so by our Laws he is expresly charged at his Ordination to do and forbidden to Teach any thing as required of necessity to Salvation but that which he is perswaded may be concluded and proved by the Scripture yea it Commandeth him with all faithful diligence to banish and drive away all Erroneous and strange Doctrines that are contrary to Gods VVord Doth the VVord Authorise him to Administer the Sacraments So doth our Law Doth the VVord require that the Minister should not only publickly Teach but also oversee and look to the Peoples Conversation Exhorting Admonishing Reproving Comforting them as well privately as publickly So doth our Law Lastly Doth the VVord Authorise the Minister to execute the Censures and Discipline of Christ our Law doth also command the same So that although many to whom the execution of these things appertain do grievously fail in the practice thereof yet you see the Office which the Law enjoyneth to the Minister is the same in substance with that which the VVord layeth upon him Tell us not then That the same Name is given to our Office as to the Popish Sacrificers Do you think the worse of your self because you are called Brownists And Shall the Holy Office and Calling which is so agreeable to the VVord be misliked because it is called a Priesthood considering that though it agree in Name yet it differeth in Nature and Suâ—stance as much from the Romish Priesthood as Light doth from Darkness IV. That Discipline is wanting in our Church To which they Answer 1. That the want or neglect of some of those Ordinances of Christ which concern the Discipline of his Church and the outward calling of his Ministers is no such sin as can make either the Ministers or Governors of our Church Antichrist or our Church an Antichristian and False Church And Mr. H. adds That no one place of Scripture can be found wherein he is called an Antichrist or Antichristian who holding the Truth of Doctrine and professing those Articles of Religion that are Fundamental as we do doth swerve either in Iudgment or Practice from that Rule which Christ hath given for the Discipline of his Church Neither can you find any Antichrist mentioned in Scripture whose Doctrine is sound If then the Doctrine of our Church be sound VVhat VVarrant have you to call us Antichrists If our Pastors offer to lead you unto Salvation through no other door than Christ How dare you that say you are Christ's refuse to be guided by them If our Assemblies be built upon that Rock How can you deny them to be True Churches 2 That the Substance of Discipline is preserved among us in which they reckon Preaching of the VVord and Administration of Sacraments as well as the Censures of Admonition Suspension Excommunication and Provision for the Necessity of the Poor which say they by Law ought to be in all our Assemblies and therefore we cannot justly be said to be without the Discipline of Christ but rather that we having the Discipline of Christ which is most substantial do want the other and so exercise it not rightly that is to say not by those Officers which Christ hath appointed And farther they add That the Laws of our Land do Authorize the Minister to stay from the Lords Table all such as are Vncatâ—chised and out of Charity or any otherwise publick offenders as appeareth in the Rubrick before the Communion and in that which is after Confirmation 3. That although it were granted That we wanted both the Exercise of the Churches Censures and some of those Officers which Christ hath appointed to exercise them by yet might we be a True Church notwithstanding as there was a True Church in Judah all the days of Asa and Jehosaphat yet was not the Discipline Reformed there till the latter end of Jehoshaphat's Reign The Church of Corinth was a True Church even when the Apostle blamed them for want of Discipline The Congregation at Samaria is called a Church before the Discipline was established there And even in Jerusalem there was a famous visible Church of Christ long before sundry parts of the Discipline for want whereof they Condemn us were established there yea it is evident that by the Apostles themselves divers Churches were gathered some good space of time before the Discipline was setled or exercised by all which it is manifest that how necessary soever those parts of the Discipline which we want be to the Beauty and Well-being or preservation of the Church yet are they not necessary to the being thereof but a True Church may be without them
and the necessity of Christ ' s Flock and Disciples must necessarily if truly followed lead on to and inforce a Separation Notwithstanding all this Mr. Cotton doth assert the Lawfulness of hearing English Preachers in our Parish Churches but then he saith There is no Church Communion in Hearing but only in giving the Seals Mr. Williams urgeth That there is Communion in Doctrine and Fellowship of the Gospel Upon which Mr. Cotton grants That though a Man may joyn in Hearing and Prayer before and after Sermon yet not as in a Church-state Yet after all he will not deny our Churches to be True Churches But if they remain true Churches it appears from the former Discourse they can never justifie Separation from them upon the Principles of either Party So that though those of the Congregational Way seem to be more moderate as to some of their Principles then the old rigid Separatists yet they do not consider that by this means they make their Separation more Inexcusable The Dissenting Brethren in their Apologetical Narration to avoid the imputation of Brownism deliver this as their Judgment concerning our Parochial Churches And for our own Congregations viz. of England we have this sincere Profession to make before God and all the World that all that Conscience of the Defilements we conceived to cleave to the true Worship of God in them or of the Vnwarranted Power in Church Governors exercised therein did never work in us any other thought much less opinion but that Multitudes of the Assemblies and Parochial Congregations thereof were the True Churches and Body of Christ and the Ministery thereof a True Ministery much less did it ever enter into our hearts to Iudge them Antichristian we saw and cannot but see that by the same reason the Churches abroad in Scotland Holland c. though more Reformed yet for their Mixture must be in like manner Iudged no Churches also which to imagine or conceive is and hath ever been an horror to our thoughts Yea we have always professed and that in those times when the Churches of England were the most either actually overspread with Defilements or in the greatest danger thereof and when our selves had least yea no hopes of ever so much as visiting our own Land again in peace and safety to our persons that we both did and would hold Communion with them as the Church of Christ. This is a very fair Confession from the Dissenting Brethren but then the difficulty returns with greater force How comes Separation from these Churches to be lawful If they had gone upon the Brownists Principles all the Dispute had been about the truth or falshood of them but their truth being supposed the necessity of Separation followed whereas now upon altering the State of the Controversie by the Independents though their Principles seem more Moderate yet their Practice is more Unreasonable It is therefore a vain pretence used at this day to justifie the Separation That they do not deny our Churches to be true Churches and that therein they differ from the old Separatists It is true in that Opinion they do but in Separation they agree which is the more unjustifiable in them since they yield so much to our Churches And yet herein whatever they preâ—end they do not exceed their Independent Brethren whose Separation themselves Condemned But the Presbyterians were then unsatisfied with this Declaration of the Dissenting Brethren and thought it did not sufficiently clear them from the Charge of Brownism because 1. They agreed with the old Separatists in the Main Principle of Popular Church Government Which they say is inconsistent with the Civil Peace as may be seen say they in the Quarrels both at Amsterdam and Rotterdam and the Law-Suites depending before the Magistrates there 2. They overthrow the Bounds of Parochial Churches as the Separatists did and think such a Confinement Unlawful 3. They make true Saintship the necessary Qualification of Church Members as the Separatists did Whereby say they they confound the Visible and Invisible Church and make the same essential form of both 4. They renounce the Ordination received in our Church but all the allowance they make of a true Ministry is by vertue of an explicit or implicit Call grounded on the Peoples explicit or implicit Covenant with such a Man as their Pastor For when they first began to set up a Congregational Church after the New Model at Rotterdam Ward was chosen Pastor and Bridges Teacher but they both Renounced their Ordination in England and some say They ordained one another others That they had no other Ordination than what the Congregation gave them Sect. 13. And now new Congregations began to be set up in Holland upon these Principles but they again fell into Divisions as great as the former Simpson renouncing his Ordination was admitted a private member of the Church at Rotterdam but he grew soon unsatisfied with the Orders of that Church and thought too great a Restraint was laid upon the private Members as to the exercise of Prophecying and so he and those who joyned with him complaining of the Mischief of Impositions were ready for a Separation if that restraint were not speedily removed Mr. Bridge yields to the thing but not as to the time viz. On the Lords Day after Sermon this gives no satisfaction for they must have their will in every thing or else they will never cease complaining of the Mischief of Impositions And so Mr. Simpson and his Party set up a New Church of their own Which I. Goodwin doth not deny for Mr. Simpson saith he upon dislike of some persons and things in that Church whereof Mr. Bridge was Pastor might seek and make a departure from it But were these Churches quiet after this Separation made So far from it that the contentions and slanders were no less grievous saith Baylie than those of Amsterdam betwixt Ainsworth and Johnsons followers But did not Mr. Bridges Church continue in great quietness No but in stead of that they were so full of Bitterness Reproaches and hard Censures that Mr. Brâ—dge often declared If he had known at first what he met with afterwards he would never have come amongst them nor being amongst them have given them such scope and liberty as he had It seems at last he came to apprehend the necessity of Impositions and the mischief of a Separating dividing humor But the People having the Power in their hands were resolved to shew that they held it not in vain for Mr. Ward had it seems given Offence to some of the Congregation by Preaching the same Sermons there which he had Preached before at Norwich this and some other frivolous things were thought Intolerable Impositions and therefore against the Will of Mr. Bridge they Depose Mr. Ward from his Ministery This being a fresh discovery of the great inconveniency of Popular Church Government gave a mighty alarm to the Brethren which occasion'd a
Meeting of the Messengers from other Churches as they called them for closing up of this wound but they durst not search deep into it but only skinn'd it over to prevent the great reproach and scandal of it From these things the Presbyterians inferred the necessity of Civil Authorities interposing and of not leaving all to Conscience For say they Conscience hath been long urging the taking away that Scandal occasion'd at Rotterdam by that Schism where divers Members left the one Church and joyned to the other so disorderly wherein even the Rulers of one Church had a deep Charge yet as that could not then be prevented so there had been many Meetings Sermons and all means used to press the Conscience of taking it off by a Re-union of the Churches and yet the way to do it could never be found till the Magistrates Authority and Command found it These things I have more fully deduced Not as though bare Dissentions in a Church were an Argument of it self against it but to shew 1. That Popular Church Government naturally leads to Divisions and leaves them without Remedy and 2. That humerous and factious People will always complain of the Mischief of Impositions though the things be never so just and reasonable and 1. That this Principle of Liberty of Conscience will unavoidably lead Men into Confusion For when Men once break the Rules of Order and Government in a Church they run down the Hill and tumble down all before them If Men complain of the Mischief of our Impositions the Members of their own Churches may on the same grounds complain of theirs and as the Presbyterians cannot Answer the Independents as to the Pretence of Conscience so it is impossible for either or both of them to Answer the Anabaptists who have as just a Plea for Separation from them as they can have from the Church of England Sect. 14. From hence we find that although the Pretence of the Dissenting Brethren seemed very modest as to themselves yet they going upon a Common Principle of Liberty of Conscience the Presbyterians charged them with being the Occasion of that Horrible Inundation of Errors and Schisms which immediately overspread this City and Nation which I shall briefly represent in the words of the most â—â—inent Presbyterians of that time Thence 〈…〉 a zealous Scotch Presbyterian said That he verily believed Independency cannot but prove the Root of all Schisms and Heresies Yea I add saith he That by consequence it is much worse than Popâ—ry Thenâ—e the Scotch Commissioners in the first place presâ—ed Vniformity in Religion as the only means to preserve Peace and to prevent many Divisions and Troubles a thing very becoming the King to promote according to the practice of the good Kings of Judah and a thing which they say all sound Divines and Politicians are for Dr. Corn. Burgess told the House of Commons That our Church was laid waste and exposed to confusion under the Plausible Pretence of not forcing Mens Consciences and that to put all Men into a course of Order and Vniformity in God's way is not to force the Conscience but to set up God in his due place and to bring all his People into the paths of righteousness and life The Errors and Innovations under which we groaned so much of later years saith Mr. Case were but Tolerabiles Ineptiae Tolerable Trifles Childrens Play compared with these Damnable Doctrines Doctrines of Devils as the Apostle calls them Polygamy Arbitrary Divorce Mortality of the Soul No Ministry no Churches no Ordinances no Scripture c. And the very foundation of all these laid in such a Schism of Boundless Liberty of Conscience and such Lawless Separation of Churches c. The Famous City of London is become an Amsterdam saith Mr. Calamy Separation from our Churches is Countenanced Toleration is Cried Vp Authority asleep It would seem a wonder if I should reckon how many separate Congregations or rather Segregations there are in the City What Churches against Churches c. Hereby the hearts of the People are mightily distracted many are hindred from Conversion and even the Godly themselves have lost much of the Power of Godliness in their Lives The Lord keep us saith he from being Poysoned with such an Error as that of an Vnlimited Toleration A Doctrine that overthroweth all Church-Government bringeth in Confusion and openeth a wide door unto all Irreligion and Atheism Diversity of Religion saith Mr. Matthew Newcomen disjoynts and distracts the Minds of Men and is the Seminary of perpetual Hatreds Iealousies Seditions Wars if any thing in the World be and in a little time either a Schism in the State begets a Schim in the Church or a Schism in the Church begets a Schism in the State i. e. either Religion in the Church is prejudiced by Civil Contentions or Church-Controversies and Disputes about Opinions break out into Civil Wars Men will at last take up Swords and Spears in stead of Pens and defend that by Arms which they cannot do by Arguments These may serve for a Taste of the Sense of some of the most eminent Presbyterian Divines at that time concerning the dangerous effects of that Toleration which their Independent Brethren desired The Dissenting Brethren finding themselves thus Loaden with so many Reproaches and particularly with being the Occasion of so many Errors and Schisms published their Apologetical Narration in Vindication of themselves wherein as is said before they endeavour to purge themselves from the Imputation of Brownism declaring That they looked on some of our Churches as True Churches and our Ministery as a true Ministery but yet they earnestly desire liberty as to the Peaceable practice of their own way To this the Presbyterians Answered First That they did not understand by them in what Sense they allowed our Churches to be true Churches Secondly If they did what Necessity there was for any Separation or what need of Toleration As to the Sense in which they owned our Churches to be true Churches either they understood it of a bare Metaphysical Verity as many of our Divines say they grant it to the Romish Church That she is a True Church as a rotten Infections Strumpet is a True Woman and then they thank them for their Favour that they hold our Churches in the same Category with Rome or else they understand it in a Moral sense for sound and pure Churches and then say they Why do ye not joyn with us and Communicate as Brethren Why desire ye a Toleration Yes say the Dissenting Brethren we own you to be True Churches and Communicate with you in Doctrine To which the others reply'd If you own it by External Act of Communion ye must Communicate with us in Sacraments but this ye refuse therefore ye must return to the old Principles of Separation For where there was such a refusal of Communion as there was in them towards all Churches besides their own
there must lie at the bottom the same Principle of Separation which was in the Brownists And as Mr. Newcomen urged them their agreeing with us in Doctrines that are Fundamental their holding one Head and one Faith doth not excuse them from being guilty of breach of Vnity and downright Schism as long as they hold not one Body one Baptism For when Men make different Assemblies and Congregations and draw Men into Parties it is not their owning the same Doctrine doth excuse them from Schism as he proves from St. Augustin and Beza Of which afterwards But still they denied themselves to be Brownists or Rigid Separatists because they separated from our Congregations as no Churches and from the Ordinances dispensed as Antichristian and from our People as no Visible Christians To which the other Replyed That there was always a Difference among the Separatists themselves some being more rigid than others and as to the last Clause none since Barrow had owned it But for the rest only putting Vnlawful for Antichristian and by Ordinances understanding Church-Ordinances they own the very same Principles as the others did And although in words they seem to own our Parochial Congregations to be true Churches yet having the same Opinions with the more moderate Brownists touching Church-Constitution Matter Form Power Government Communion Corruptions c. The consequence must be say they that we have no true Churches and that our Ordinances are all unlawful And the less cause they have to plead for their Separation by acknowledging our Churches to be True Churches their Separation is so much the more culpable and the grosser and more inexcusable the Schism For it is a greater sin saith Bayly to depart from a Church which I profess to be True and whose Ministry I acknowledge to be saving than from a Church which I conceive to be False and whose Ministers I take to have no calling from God nor any Blessing from his hand So that the Independents were then charged with Schism for these two things First For refusing Communion with those Churches which they confessed to be true Churches For say the Members of the Assembly Thus to depart from True Churches is not to hold Communion with them as such but rather by departing to declare them not to be such Secondly For setting up different Congregations where they confessed there was an Agreement in Doctrine Sect. 15. But because some Men are so unwilling to understand the True State of this Controversie about Separation between the Divines of the Assembly and the Independents I shall here give a fuller account of it from the Debates between them The desire of the Independents as it was proposed by themselves at the Committee for Accommodation Dec. 4. 1645. was this That they may not be forced to Communicate as Members in those Parishes where they dwell but may have liberty to have Congregations of such Persons who give good Testimonies of their Godliness and yet out of tenderness of Conscience cannot Communicate in their Parishes but do voluntarily offer themselves to joyn in such Congregations To which the Divines of the Assembly Answered Decemb. 15. This Desire is not to be granted them for these Reasons 1. Because it holds out a plain and total Separation from the Rule as if in nothing it were to be complied with nor our Churches to be communicated with in any thing which should argue Church-Communion More could not be said or done against False Churches 2. It plainly holds out The lawfulness of gathering Churches out of true Churches yea out of such True Churches which are endeavouring farther to reform according to the word of God whereof we are assured there is not the least hint of any example in all the Book of God 3. This would give Countenance to A perpetual Schism and Division in the Church still drawing away some from the Churches under the Rule which also would breed many Irritations among the Parties going away and those whom they leave and again between the Church that should be forsaken and that to which they should go Decemb. 23. The Dissenting Brethren put in their Reply to these Reasons To the First Reason they say 1. That gathering into other Congregations such who cannot out of tenderness of Conscience partake as Members in their Churches for the purer enjoyment as to their Consciences of all Ordinances yet still maintaining Communion with them as Churches is far from Separation much less a plain and total Separation And this is not setting up Churches against Churches but Neighbour Sister Churches of a different Iudgment For say they if the purest Churches in the World unto our Iudgment in all other respects should Impose as a Condition of receiving the Sacrament of the Lords Supper any one thing that such tender Consciences cannot joyn in as suppose kneeling in the Act of Receiving which was the case of Scotland and England if they remove from these Churches and have Liberty from a State to Gather into other Churches to enjoy this and other Ordinances this is no Separation 2. That it is not a plain and total Separation from the Rule unless they Wholly in all things differ by setting up altogether different Rules of Constitution Worship and Government but they shall practice the most of the same things and these the most substantial which are found in the Rule it self 3. That they would maintain Occasional Communion with their Churches not only in Hearing and Preaching but Occasionally in Baptising their Children in their Churches and receiving the Lords Supper there c. And Would not all this clear them from the Imputation of Schism Not agreeing in the main things Not owning their Churches to be true Not maintaining Occasional Communion with them Let us hear what the Divines of the Assembly think of all this Thus they Answer First That although Tenderness of Conscience may bind Men to forbear or suspend the Act of Communion in that Particular wherein Men conceive they cannot hold Communion without sin yet it doth not bind to follow such a positive Prescript as possibly may be divers from the Will and Counsel of God of which kind we conceive this of Gathering Separate Churches out of True Churches to be one Secondly It is one thing to remove to a Congregation which is under the same Rule another to a Congregation of a different Constitution from the Rule in the former case a Man retains his Membership in the latter he renounceth his Membership upon difference of Judgment touching the very Constitution of the Churches from and unto which he removes Thirdly If a Church do require that which is evil of any Member he must forbear to do it yet without Separation They who thought Kneeling in the Act of Communion to be unlawful either in England or Scotland did not Separate or Renounce Membership but did some of them with Zeal and Learning defend our Church against those of the Separation Fourthly The Notion
agreeably to their present practice although least for the honor of the Assembly who confess That they were transported with undue heats and animosities against their Brethren which deserve to be lamented and not to be imitated that they are not obliged to vindicate all they said nor to be concluded by their Determinations that it is to be hoped the Party is become wiser since This is plain dealing and giving up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren and that in a matter wherein they happened to have the strongest reason of their side But hereby we see that those who justifie the present Separation have forsaken the Principles and Practices of the old Non-conformists as to this point of Separation Sect. 17. It remains now that I shew how far they are likewise gone off from the Peaceable Principles of their Predecessors as to private persons undertaking to reform the Discipline of the Church and setting up new Churches against the consent of the Magistrate in a Reformed Church and particularly as to the Preaching of their Ministers when Silenced by our Law 's This I am the more obliged to do because when I said That I was certain that Preaching in opposition to our Established Laws is contrary to the doctrine of all the Non-conformists of former times Mr. B. is pleased to say That my Assertion is so rash and false in matters of notorious Fact that it weakeneth his Reverence of my Iudgment in matters of right I should desire no better Terms from Mr. B. as to the matter of right in this present Controversie than that he would be determin'd by the plain Evidence of the Fact and if what I said be true and notoriously true I shall leave him to consider on whose side the Rashness lies Giffard makes this one principal part of Brownism That Churches are to be set up and Discipline reformed without the consent of the Christian Magistrate Brown maketh many Arguments saith he to prove that Princes are not to be stayed for nor yet to have to do by Publick Power to establish Religion Which Opinion of his is such abridging the Sacred Power of Princes and such horribâ— Injury to the Church contrary to the manifest Word of God that if there were nothing else it is enough to make him an odious and detestable Heretick untill he shew Repentance But to clear this matter he distinguishes 1. of Princes that are enemies to Christianity as they were in the time of the Apostles to what end saith he should they having Authority from Christ to establish Discipline sue unto the Courts of such Princes or attend their pleasure 2. Of such who profess Christianity but are Idolaters In this case he saith they are neither â—ound to forbear Preaching nor setting up Discipline if they do oppose it 3. Of such Princes who own the true Doctrine of Christianity but the Churches in their Dominions are corrupt in Discipline In this case he determines That though every Man is to take care to keep a good Conscience yet no private persons are to break the Vnity and Peace of the Faithful or to take upon them Publick Authority to reform which he there proves and concludes it to be a wicked and dangerous Principle in the Brownists to hold the contrary In Answer to this Barrow saith That the Servants of God ought not to be stayed from doing the Commandments of God upon any restraint or persecution of any Mortal Man whatsoever and for this he quotes the example of the Apostles who then had been guilty of the same disobedience and rebellion if Princes had been to be stayed for or their restraint been a sufficient let and adds That they only according to Gods Commandment refrained from their Idolatry and other Publick Evils and Assembled together in all holy and peaceable manner to Worship the Lord our God and to joyn our selves together in the Faith unto mutual Duties and to seek that Government which Christ left to his Church and for the Church to erect the same To the Instance of the Apostles Giffard had Answered That they were furnished with an extraordinary Authority and Commission by Christ to set up his Kingdom but ye have no Commission from God it is the Devil that hath set you forward And will ye in such vile and wretched manner pretend the Examples of the Primitive Churches Barrow replies If the Commandment of God were sufficient warrant to the Apostles to do their Work though all the Princes of the World resisted then must the Commandment of the same God be of the same effect to all other Instruments whom it pleaseth the Lord to use in their callings to his Service also though all the Princes in the World should withstand and forbid the same By this we see this was a great point in controversie between the Brownists and Non-conformists Which will more appear by the Dispute between Fr. Iohnson and Iacob For among the points of false Doctrine which he charges the Non-conformists with whom they called the forward Preachers these are two 1. That the planting or reforming of Christ's Church must tarry for the Civil Magistrate and may not otherwise be brought in by the Word and Spirit of God in the Mouths of his weakest Servants except they have Authority from Earthly Princes which Doctrine saith he is against the Kingly Power of Christ and three whole Lines of Scripture which he there puts together 2. That it is lawful for a Minister of Christ to cease Preaching and to forsake his Flock at the commandment of a Lord Bishop Which Doctrine he saith is contrary to two Lines of Scripture more with the bare numbers of Chapter and Verse But lest it should be supposed that these two were among those which Iacob saith he falsly laid to their charge we find both these Doctrines owned by the several Non-conformists who joyned together in a Confutation of the Brownists For say they As to the Peoples power of Reforming First We cannot find any Warrant in Holy Scripture for them that are private Members of any Church to erect the Discipline no not though the Magistrate and Ministers who should deal in this work were altogether profane and ungodly Secondly We esteem our Prince to be a most Lawful and Christian Magistrate and our Ministers to be true Ministers of Christ and therefore we are justly afraid that by enterprising a publick Reformation not only without but contrary to the direction and liking of them who by God's word ought to have if not the onely yet the principal hand in that work we should highly offend God Thirdly That for the want of Publick Reformation the Magistrate is every where blamed and no where the Church for ought we can find Oft are the Priests and People blamed for erecting and practising Idolatry but never for that they plucked it not down when their Princes had set it up neither can we find whether ever the Church under a
Suppose the Bishops and Clergy have gained the consent implicit at least of the People and so are no Vsurpers yet if they be Persecutors or Ithacian Prelatists i.e. if they either act towards or approve of the Silencing Non-conformists the People may Separate from them When Mr. B. wrote the Defence of his Book called The Cure of Divisions to satisfie the People who were much displeased with him for it one of the material Questions he Asks about his Book is Is there a word to perswade you to Communion with Persecutors As though that had been an unpardonable Crime In the Plea he saith If any Excommunicate persons for not complying with them in sin i.e. Conformity but also prosecute them with Mulcts Imprisonments Banishments or other Prosecution to force them to transgress this were yet more heinously aggravated Schism and therefore it is no sin to Separate from such And how easily Men are drawn in to the guilt of this persecution appears by the example he makes of me for although I expresly set aside the case of Ministers and declared I intended only to speak of Lay-communion yet he charges me with engaging my self in the Silencing design And by such consequences all that speak against Separation may be Separated from as Persecuters and Ithacian Prelatists Sect. 13. 4. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say the Schism doth not lye on those that Separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers This is the most colourable Plea hath been yet used by them But in this case we must distinguish between terms of communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such which are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful Ignorance or error of Conscience That there is a real distinction between these two is evident and that it ought to be considered in this case appears from hence that else there can be no sinful separation under an erroneous Conscience As suppose some men should think that Preaching by an hour-glass and much more Praying by one was a stinting of the Spirit in point of Time as Praying by a Form was in point of words and all Men should be required to begin the publick Worship at such an Hour and so end at such an Hour time being a necessary circumstance our Brethren grant that the Magistrate or Church may lawfully determine it Here is then a lawful imposition and yet the Quakers may really judge it to be sinful and declare they cannot communicate unless this sinful Imposition be removed For it is against their Consciences to have the Spirit limited to any certain time On whose side doth the Schism lie in this case Not on the Imposers because they grant such an imposition lawful therefore it must lie on those that Separate although they judge such terms of Communion sinful If therefore the determination of other things not forbidden be really as much in the Magistrates and Churches Power as the necessary circumstances of time and place c. then mens apprehending such terms of Communion to be sinful will not hinder the guilt of Separation from lying on their side and not on the imposers Because it is to be supposed that where there is no plain prohibition men may with ordinary care and judgment satisfie themselves of the lawfulness of things required As for instance when the Church of Rome imposeth the Worship of Images we have the plain prohibition of the Second Commandment to prove that it is really a sinful condition of Communion but when our Church requireth the constant use of a Liturgy and Ceremonies which are now pleaded as sinful conditions of Communion Where is the prohibition In the same Second Commandment say some I desire them to read it over to me They do so Where say I are the words that forbid a Liturgy or Ceremonies I am mistaken they tell me it is not in the words but in the sense I Ask How we should come by the sense but from the words Yes they say there are certain Rules for interpreting the Commandments Are they Divine or Human Where are they to be found What are those Rules One they say is that where any thing is forbidden something is commanded So say I there is here a Command to Worship God without an Image What is there more Yes say they 1. That we must not Worship God with our own Inventions now Liturgies and Ceremonies are Mens Inventions But I say no Inventions are condemned in the Worship of God but such as God himself hath somewhere forbidden but he hath no where forbidden these And human Inventions are forbidden in this Commandment in the Worship of God but then 1 They are such inventions which go about to represent God and so to disparage him and no other inventions are to be understood than the Reason of the Law doth extend to i.e. not such which are consistent with the Spiritual and Invisible nature of God 2. They are not such as do relate to the manner or form of Worship supposing the Worship it self be performed in a way agreeable to the Divine Nature and Law For otherwise all use of mens inventions as to Preaching or Reading or Interpreting Scripture would be forbidden And then this interpretation of the Second Commandment would be unlawful because it is a meer Invention of Men as much as Liturgies or Ceremonies By this we see what stretching and forcing of Scripture there must be to make Liturgies or Ceremonies unlawful terms of Communion And that Men must first blind and fetter their Minds by certain prejudices of Education or Reading only one sort of Books and taking some things for granted which they ought not before they can esteem the terms of Communion required by our Church to be sinful and therefore the Schism doth not lye on the Imposers side but upon those who suffer themselves first to be so easily Deluded and then Separate from our Church upon it But there is another plain instance in this case wherein our Brethren themselves will not allow the Schism to lie on the imposers side and that is of those who deny the lawfulness of Infant-Baptism Many of whom pretend to do it with as much sincerity and impartiality as any of our Brethren can deny the lawfulness of Liturgy or Ceremonies if they break Communion rather than allow what they judge to be sinful On whose side doth the Schism lie on theirs that require the allowance of it as a condition of Communion or not If on the Imposers side they must condemn themselves who blame the Anabaptists for their Separation And so did Fr. Iohnson and so did the New-England Churches From whence it appears that they do all agree that where Men through mistake do judge those to be sinful terms of Communion which are not the guilt of Schism doth not lie on the imposers side but on those that separate
we to do to judge the Members of other Reformed Churches Our business is with those who being Baptized in this Church and living under the Rules and Government of it either renounce the Membership they once had in it or avoid Communion with it as Members and joyn with other Societies set up in opposition to this Communion Yet this matter about the Foreign Churches Mr. B. mentions again and again as though their case could be thought alike who never departed from ours but only continue in the Communion of their own Churches 5. I do not charge every disobedience to the King and Laws and Canons in matters of Religion Government and Worship with the Guilt of Separation For although a Man may be guilty of culpable disobedience in breaking the Commands of Authority and the Orders of the Church he lives in yet if he continues in all Acts of Communion with our Church and draws not others from it upon mere pretence of greater Purity of Worship and better means of Edification I do not charge such a one with Schism 6. I do not charge those with Separation who under Idolatrous or Arian Princes did keep up the Exercise of true Religion though against the Will of the Magistrate But what is this to our case where the true Religion is acknowledged and the true Doctrine of Faith owned by the dissenters themselves who break off Communion with our Churches Wherefore then doth Mr. B. make so many Quaeres about the case of those who lived under Heathen Persecutors or the Arian Emperors or Idolatorous Princes I hope he did not mean to Parallel their own Case with theirs for What horrible reflection would this be upon our Government and the Protestant Religion established among us To what end doth he mention Valens and Hunericus that cut out of the Preachers Tongues and several other unbecoming Insinuations when God be thanked we live under a most merciful Prince and have the true Doctrine of the Gospel among us and may have it still continued if Mens great Ingratitude as well as other crying Sins do not provoke God justly to deprive us of it What need was there of letting fall any passages tending this way when I told him in the very State of the Question that all our Dispute was Whether the upholding Separate Meetings for Divine Worship where the Doctrine established and the substantial parts of Worship are acknowledged to be agreeable to the Word of God be a Sinful Separation or not Why is this Dissembled and passed over And the worst cases imaginable supposed in stead of that which is really theirs If I could defend a Cause by no other means I think Common Ingenuity the Honor of our Prince and Nation and of the Protestant Religion Professed among us would make me give it over Sect. 16. And for the same Reasons in the management of this debate I resolve to keep to the true State of the Question as it is laid down and to make good the charge of Separation I. Against those who hold occasional Communion with our Church to be lawful in some parts of Worship but deny constant Communion to be a Duty II. Against those who deny any Communion with our Church to be lawful although they agree with us in the Substantial of Religion 1. Against those who hold occasional Communion to be lawful with our Church in some parts of Worship but deny Constant Communion to be a Duty To overthrow this Principle I shall prove these two things 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation 2. That as far as occasional Communion with our Church is allowed to be lawful constant Communion is a Duty 1. That bare occasional Communion doth not excuse from the guilt of Separation Which will appear by these things First Bare occasional Communion makes no Man the Member of a Church This term of occasional Communion as far as I can find was invented by the Dissenting Brethren to give satisfaction to the Presbyterians who charged them with Brownism to avoid this charge they declared That the Brownists held all Communion with our Parochial Churches unlawful which they did not for said they we can occasionally Communicate with you but this gave no manner of satisfaction to the other Pary as long as they upheld Separate Congregations with whom they would constantly Communicate and accounted those their Churches with whom they did joyn as Members of the same Body But if notwithstanding this lawfulness of occasional Communion with our Churches they joyned with other societies in strict and constant communion it was a plain Argument they apprehended something so bad or defective in our Churches that they could not joyn as Members with them and because they saw a necessity of joyning with some Churches as Members they pleaded for separate Congregations And so must all those do who think it their duty to be members of any Churches at all and not follow Grotius his Example in suspending Communion from all Churches Which is a principle I do not find any of our dissenting Brethren willing to own Although Mr. B. declares That he and some others own themselves to be Pastors to no Churches That he never gather'd a Church that he Baptized none in 20 years and gave the Lords Supper to none in 18 years I desire to know what Church Mr. B. hath been of all this time For as to our Churches he declares That he thinks it lawful to Communicate with us occasionally but not as Churches for he thinks we want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power as appears before but as Oratories and so he renounces Communion with our Churches as Churches and for other Churches he saith he hath gathered none he hath administred Sacraments to none in 18 years and if he hath not joyned as a Member in constant Communion with any separate Church he hath been so long a Member of no Church at all It is true he hath Pray'd occasionally and Receiv'd the Sacrament occasionally in our Oratories but not as a Member of our Churches he hath Preached occasionally to separate Congregations but he hath gatherâ—d no Church he hath Administred no Sacraments for 18 years together So that he hath Prayed occasionally in one place and Preached occasionally in another but hath had no Communion as Member of a Church any where But I wonder how any Man could think such a necessity lay upon him to Preach that Woe was unto him if he did not and yet apprehend none to Administer the Sacraments for so long together none to joyn himself as a Member to any Church Is it possible for him to think it Sacriledge not to Preach and to think it no fault not to give the Sacraments to others nor to receive one of them himself as a Communicant with a Church Was there not the same devotedness in Ordination to the faithful Administration of Sacraments as to Preaching
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
find cause or at lest think they have found cause just enough to separate one from another I never heard saith he of any instance to the contrary either in England or Holland The substance of this I had objected before in the Preface to my Sermon To which Mr. A. Replies after this manner That though some petty and inconsiderable inconveniencies some little trouble may arise to a Church from the levity and volubility of Mens Minds yet this is no Reason why they should enslave their Iudgments or Consciences to others And Is this all the Antidote against the Mischief of Separation Is it a Sin to break the Churches Communion or Is it not If it be a Sin in some cases but not in others Why do you not shew us what those cases are and that it is a sinful Separation in other cases but not in them But to talk of small inconveniencies by the levity of Peoples minds is Childish trifling and not Answering Is Schism indeed become such an inconsiderable and petty inconvenience Is this an Answer becoming a Christian To swell every small imposition into a huge insupportable Mountain and to make themselves lie groaning under the weight of a Ceremony or two as though their very heart-strings were cracking and as if Nero had begun a fresh Persecution and at the same time to lessen the guilt of Division and Separation as though it were nothing but a little wantonness in the Lambs of their Flocks frisking up and down from one Pasture to another some small and inconsiderable inconveniencies may happen by it but not worth speaking of and it is pity they should be deprived of their pleasure for it What a rare Advocate had this Man been for the Novatians Donatiâ—ts Luciferians or what Schismaticks soever rent the Church in pieces in former times And supposing St. Cyprian and St. Augustine and other great opposers of the antient Schisms to be met together we may gather from these words and the Principles of Separation which he lays down after what manner he would accost them Alass saith he What do you mean Cyprian and Austin and other Reverend Fathers to talk with so much severity and sharpness against separation from the communion of the Church as though it were such a damnable sin such a sacrilegious impiety such a horrid wickedness Will you make no allowance to the levity and volubility of Mens Minds What! you would have Men enslave their Iudgments and consciences to others would you you would have us be meer Brutes to be managed by your Bit and Bridle If the Novatians do think your Discipline too loose Why should not they joyn together for stricter If Felicissimus and his Brethren dislike some things in the Church of Carthage Why may not they go to the Mountains for separate Meetings If the good People were imposed upon against their Wills in the choice of Cornelius Why may not they choose Novatian for their Pastor What a stir do you Cyprian make in your Epistles about keeping the Peace of the Church and submitting to your Rules of Discipline As though there were not more mischief in your imposing than in the Peoples separating And as for you Augustin Who can with patience read your long and fierce Declamations against the sober Donatists For there were mad hare-brained Fanaticks called Circumcellians who were troubled with more than ordinary levity and volubility running from place to place and taking away other Mens lives and their own too out of pure zeal These I grant have an extraordinary Worm which ought to be picked out in time but for the rest of the Brethren that only separate on the account of impurity which they apprehend in your Church Why should you be so severe against them Why do you so often cry out of the sacrilegiousness of this Schism we know no other sacriledge but the sacrilegious desertion of our Ministery in obedience to the Laws this is a Sacriledge we often talk of and tell the People it is far worse than robbing Church-Plate considering what precious Gifts we have But for the Sacriledge of Schism that we can never understand although I perceive you have it over and over besides many other hard words wherein you would seem to make it the greatest of all Wickedness and you say That God punished it more severely than Idolatry since those who were guilty of the latter were to be destroyed by the Sword but Schismaticks were swallowed up of the Earth as Corah and his Company Whereas we that have greater light look upon Separation but as an effect of the levity and volubility of Mens Minds and though some little trouble may come to the Church by it yet it is far better than submission to others impositions And is not this an intolerable imposition for you to force these honest Donatists to Communicate in a corrupt and impure Church as they do believe yours to be When the Cause was strictly examined at Carthage What was it their Party pleaded for but Purity of Discipline and that the Church was defiled for want of it and therefore they were forced to Separate for greater Purity of Ordinances And Is this the Damnable Devillish Sacrilegious Schism you talk of Methinks you should consider better the Mischief of your Impositions when you require Communion so strictly with you or else they must presently be Separatists and Schismaticks I pray Sirs have a little patience with me if I do not fetch off my good friends the Donatists in this matter we will all be content to be called Schismaticks as well as they For if our Principles do clear our selves I am sure they will do as good a turn for them Now the main Principles of our present Separation are these 1 That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to choose its own Pastor and every particular Christian the same Power to choose his own Church I say not to mischoose do you mark me but a power to choose not to choose any but one that may best advance their own Edification at lest that no Pastor be forced upon a Church no Church obtruded on a single Christian without their own consent Now I pray consider Why might not Lucilla and Donatus and Botrus and Celeustus with their Party among the People at Carthage choose Majorinus for their Pastor although the rest had chosen Caecilian For they were not well satisfied with Mensurius his Predecessor whom they suspected for a Traditor but when they had their liberty to choose Why should they be debarred of their inherent right of choosing their own Pastor Why should Caecilian be obtruded upon them Why should not they choose one who would best advance their Edification For Caecilian was at lest under suspicion of compliance in time of Persecution and therefore for my part upon our Principles I think the Donatists very free from the charge of Schism 2. That it is
Ceremonies of the Law as necessary to Salvation and to propagate this Opinion of theirs they went up and down and endeavor'd to draw away the Apostles Disciples and to set up Separate Churches among the Christians and to allow none to partake with them that did not own the Necessity of the Iewish Ceremomonies to Salvation Now although St. Paul himself complyed sometimes with the practice of them and the Iewish Christians especially in Iudaea generally observed them yet when these false Apostles came to enforce the observation of them as necessary to Salvation then he bid the Christians at Philippi to beware of them i. e. to fly their Communion and have nothing to do with them These are all the Cases I can find in the New Testament wherein Separation from Publick Communion is allowed but there are two others wherein S. Paul gives particular directions but such as do not amount to Separation 1. The different opinions they had about Meats and Drinks some were for a Pythagorean Abstinence from all Flesh some for a Iewish Abstinence from some certain sorts others for a full Christian Liberty Now this being a matter of Diet and relating to their own Families the Apostle advises them not to censure or judge one another but notwithstanding this difference to joyn together as Christians in the Duties common to them all For the Kingdom of God doth not lie in Meats and Drinks i. e. Let every one order his Family as he thinks fit but that requires innocency and a care not to give disturbance to the Peace of the Church for these matters which he calls Peace and Ioy in the Holy Ghost which is provoked and grieved by the dissentions of Christians And he saith he that in these things serveth Christ is acceptable to God and approved of Men. Let us therefore follow after the things that make for Peace and things wherewith we may edifie one another In such Cases then the Apostle allows no Separation from the publick Communion of Christians It was the same case as to the observation of Days then for some Christians went then on Iewish Holidays to the Synagogues others did not but for such things they ought not to divide from each others Communion in the common Acts of Christian Worship And the design of the Apostle is not to lay down a standing Rule of Mutual forbearance as to different Communions but to shew that such differences ought not to be an occasion of breaking Communion among Christians and so the Apostles discourse Rom. 14. holds strongly against Separation on these and the like Accounts 2. The corrupt lives of many who were not under Churches Censure When St. Paul taxes so many Corruptions in the Church of Corinth no wonder if some of them put the case to them what they should do in case they knew some Members of the Church to be Men of bad lives although the offences were not scandalous by being publickly known Must they abstain from the Communion of the Church for these To this St. Paul Answers That every private Christian ought to forbear all familiar Conversation with such If any one that is a Brother be a fornicator c. with such a one no not to eat Which is all the Apostle requires of private Christians but if the Scandal be publick as that of the Incestuous persou the Church had power to vindicate its own honor by casting such out not as though the Church Communion were defiled if they continued in but the reputation and honor of the Church suffered by it the preservation whereof is the true cause of the Churches Discipline But the Apostle gives not the lest countenance to private Mens withdrawing from the Churches Communion though such persons still continued in it For there may be many reasons to break off private familiarity which will not hold as to publick Communion For our Communion in publick is a thing which chiefly respects God and a necessary duty of his own appointing the benefit whereof depends upon his Promises and all the communion they have with other Men is only joyning together for the performance of a common Religious Duty but private familiarity is a thing which wholly respects the Persons converse with and a thing of mere choice and hardly to be imagined without approbation at lest if not imitation of their wickedness And therefore to argue from one to the other is very unreasonable The matter of Separation being thâ—s stated according to the Scripture there can be no way leâ—t to justifie the Separation from our Church but to prove either that our Worship is Idolatrous or that our Doctrine is false or that our Ceremonies are made necessary to Salvation which are all so remote from any color of Truth that none of my Adversaries have yet had the hardiness to undertake it But however what Pleas they do bring to justifie this Separation must in the next place be examined PART III. The Pleas for Separation examined Sect. 1. ALL the considerable Pleas at this time made use of for Separation may be reduced to these Heads 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church 2. To the terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the Parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome 1. Such as relate to the Constitution of our Church which are these 1. That our Parochial Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That our Diocesan Churches are unlawfull 3. That our National Church hath no foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Right in the choice of their Pastours 1. I begin with our Parochial Churches because it is Separation from these with which we principally charge our Adversaries for herein they most discover their principles of Separation since in former times the Non-conformists thought it their duty to keep up Communion with them But since the Congregational way hath prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into the practice of it whatever their principles are at least so far as concerns forsaking Communion with our Parochial Churches and joyning together in separate Congregations for Divine Worship This principle is therefore the first thing to be examined And the main foundation of that way I said was that Communion in Ordinances must be onely in such Churches as Christ himself instituted by unalterable Rules which were onely particular and Congregational Churches Concerning which I laid down two things 1. That supposing Congregational Churches to be of Christ's Institution this was no reason for separation from our Parochial Churches which have all the essentials of such true Churches in them 2. That there is no reason to believe that the Institution of Churches was limited to particular Congregations In answer to this Dr. O. saith these things 1. That they do not deny at least some of our Parochial Churches to be true Churches but why then do they deny Communion with them But he saith
submitted to the Apostles and after to other Pastours But Iustice Hobart could not be such a stranger to Antiquity to believe that the Christians in the Age after the Apostles amounted but to one Congregation in a City And therefore if he consults Iustice Hobart 's honour or his own I advise him to let it alone for the future As to the Testimony of Father Paul it onely concerns the Democratical Government of the Church and I wonder how it came into this place I shall therefore consider it in its due season Sect. 3. I come therefore to consider now the evidence for the Institution of Congregational Churches concerning which these are my words It is possible at first there might be no more Christians in one City than could meet in one Assembly for Worship but where doth it appear that when they multiplied into more Congregations they did make new and distinct Churches under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Of this I am well assured there is no mark or footstep in the New Testament or the whole History of the Primitive Church I do not think it will appear credible to any considerate man that the 5000 Christians in the Church of Ierusalem made one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship not if we make all the allowances for strangers which can be desired but if this were granted where are the unalterable Rules that as soon as the company became too great for one particular Assembly they must become a new Church under peculiar Officers and an Independent Authority To this Dr. O. answers in four particulars 1. That an account may e're long be given of the insensible deviation of the First Churches after the decease of the Apostles from the Rule of the first Institution which although at first it began in matters of small moment yet still they increased untill they issued in a fatal Apostasy Or as he after expresses it leaving their Infant state by degrees they at last brought forth the Man of Sin But I do not understand how this at all answers the former Paragraph of my Sermon concerning the first Institution of Churches but being I suppose intended for a Reason why he doth not afterwards answer to the evidence out of Antiquity I shall not onely so far take notice of it as to let him know that when that is done I do not question but the Primitive Church will find sufficient Advocates in the Church of England but I desire that undertaker to consider what a blot and dishonour it will be to Christian Religion if the Primitive Churches could not hold to their first Institution not for one Age after the Apostles I know what abominable Heresies there were soon after if not in the Apostles days but the question is not concerning these but the purest and best Churches and about them not whether some trifling Controversies might not arise and humane infirmities be discovered but whether they did deviate from the plain Institutions of Christ and the unalterable Rules of Government which he had fixed in his Church This seems utterly incredible to me upon this consideration among many others That Government is so nice and tender a thing that every one is so much concerned for his share in it that men are not easily induced to part with it Let us suppose the Government of the Church to have been Democratical at first as Dr. O. seems to doe is it probable that the People would have been wheadled out of the sweetness of Government so soon and made no noise about it Yea Dr. O. tells us that in Cyprian's time it continued at Carthage and others say a great deal longer there was then no such change as to this part of the Government so soon after And why should we imagin it otherwise as to extent of Power and Iurisdiction Suppose Christ had limited the Power of a Church to one Congregation the Pastour of that Church could have no more pretence over any other Congregation than Dr. O. by being Pastour over one Congregation in London could challenge a right to Govern all the Independent Congregations in London or about it and appoint their several Teachers and call them to an account for their proceedings I appeal now to any man of consideration whether there be the least probability that such an alteration could be made without great noise and disturbance Would not Mr. G. Mr. B. Mr. C. and many more think themselves concerned to stand up for their own Rights And if they could be drawn into the design would the People submit Let us put the case as to New-England Suppose the Apostles an Age or two since had planted such Congregational Churches there as have been formed within these last 50 years at Plimouth Boston Hereford Newhaven c. and had invested every Congregation with the full Power of the Keys the execution whereof they had intrusted with the several Elderships within their own Congregation but so as not to have any Power or Authority over the Elders or Members of any other Congregation let us then suppose that after the decease of the Apostles these Churches gradually declined so far that in this Age Mr. Cotton at Boston should take upon him the whole Power of the Keys and not onely so but appoint Pastours over other Congregations and keep a great number of Elders under him and challenge the Ecclesiastical Iurisdiction over the whole Colony of Massachusets of which Boston is the chief Town and so three others doe the same at the chief Places of the other Colonies would not this be a wonderfull alteration of the Church Government And is it possible to conceive such a change should be brought about insensibly without any complaint of the subordinate Elders or the members of the Congregations who were robbed of their inherent Right by an Institution of Christ and so late an establishment by the Apostles Doctrines may be insensibly changed by continuing the names and altering opinions through the carelesness and unskilfulness of People but in matters of Government the meanest People are sensible and look big with an opinion of it If therefore it be not conceivable in this case the Government should be thus changed from the Institution of Christ in so short a time let the same consideration be applied to the Ages which really succeeded the Apostles Sect. 4. I shall to prevent all cavils choose that very Church which Dr. O. mentions and I find Mr. Cotton and others make their Appeals to and that is the Church of Carthage in Saint Cyprian's time Here Dr. O. finds the Community of members determining Church affairs but Mr. Cotton hath further discovered the judgment of the Elders the Votes of the Congregation and the Consent of neighbour Ministers in short he hath found there the express and lively lineaments of the very Body of Congregational Discipline and the same for substance wherein they walk as he calls it at this day Hitherto
whatsoever you shall bind c. From whence saith he by a constant succession of times such a course hath been always observed in the Church that the Church hath been still governed by Bishops and every Act of the Church hath been under their care and conduct Since this saith he is a Divine Institution I wonder at the boldness of those who have written at that rate to me concerning the lapsed since the Church consists in the Bishop the Clergy and the standing People In his Epistle to Antonianus he speaks of the Agreement of the Bishops throughout the whole world and in that to Cornelius that every Bishop hath a part of the flock committed to him which he is to govern and to give an account thereof to God and that a Bishop in the Church is in the place of Christ and that disobedience to him is the cause of schisms and disorders To the same purpose he speaks in his Epistle to Rogatianus and to Pupianus where he declares a Church to be a People united to a Bishop and to Stephanus that they have succeeded the Apostles in a constant course Let the Reader now judge whether these be the strokes and lineaments of the Congregational way and whether Dr. O. had any reason to appeal to Saint Cyprian for the Democratical Government of the Church But we have this advantage from this appeal that they do not suppose any deviation then from the Primitive Institution and what that was in Saint Cyprian's judgment any one may see when he speaks of nothing peculiar to his own Church but what was generally observed over the Christian world And now let Dr. O. give an account how a change so great so sudden so universal should happen in the Christian world in the Government of the Church that when Christ had placed the Power in the People the Bishops in so short a time should be every where settled and allowed to have the chief management in Church-affairs without any controul from the People which to me is as strong an argument as a matter of this nature will bear that the Power was at first lodged in them and not in the People For as Mr. Noys of New-England well argues It is not imaginable that Bishops should come by such Power as is recorded in Ecclesiastical History and that over all the world and in a way of ambition in such humbling times without all manner of opposition for 300 years together and immediately after the Apostles had it been usurpation or innovation When and where is innovation without opposition Would not Elders so many seeing and knowing men at least some of them have contended for Truth wherein their own Liberties and Rights were so much interessed Aërius his opposing of Bishops so long after their rise and standing is inconsiderable The force of which reasoning will sway more with an impartial and ingenuous mind than all the difficulties I ever yet saw on the other side So much for the account Dr. O. promises of the deviations of the Churches after the Apostles decease Sect. 5. 2. Dr. O. answers as to the matter of fact concerning the Institution of Congregational Churches that it seems to him evidently exemplified in the Scripture The matter of fact is that when Churches grew too big for one single Congregation in a City then a new Congregational Church was set up under new Officers with a separate Power of Government Let us now see Dr. O.'s proof of it For although it may be there is not express mention made that these or those particular Churches did divide themselves into more Congregations with new Officers i. e. Although the matter of fact be not evident in Scripture yet saith he there are Instances of the erection of new particular Congregations in the same Province But what is this to the proof of the Congregational way The thing I desired was that when the Christians in one City multiplied into more Congregations they would prove that they did make new and distinct Churches and to exemplifie this he mentions new Congregations in the same Province Who ever denied or disputed that On the contrary the proof of this is a great advantage to our Cause for since where the Scripture speaks of the Churches of a Province it speaks of them as of different Churches but when it mentions the Christians of one City it calls them the Church of that City as the Church of Ierusalem the Church of Ephesus but the Churches of Iudea Galilee and Samaria what can be more evident than that the Christians of one City though never so numerous made but one Church If one observe the language of the New Testament one may find this observation not once to fail that where Churches are spoken of in the plural number they are the Churches of a Province as the Churches of Iudea the Churches of Asia the Churches of Syria and Cilicia the Churches of Galatia the Churches of Macedonia but where all the Christians of one City are spoken of it is still câ—lled the Church of that City as the Church at Antioch the Church at Corinth and when the 7 Churches are spoken of together they are the 7 Churches but when spoken to single it is the Church of Ephesus the Church of Smyrna c. Which being spoken without any discrimination as to the difference of these places in greatness and capacity or the number of Believers in them doth evidently discover that what number soever they were they were all but the Church of that City For it is not to be supposed that the number of Christians was no greater in Ephesus Sardis Pergamus and Laodicea which were great and populous Cities than in Thyatira and Philadelphia which were much less especially considering the time Saint Paul staid at Ephesâ—s and the mighty success which he had in preaching there which will amount to no great matter if in three years time he converted no more than made up one single Congregation And thus men to serve an Hypothesis take off from the mighty Power and prevalency of the Gospel I cannot but wonder what Dr. O. means when after he hath produced the evidence of distinct Churches in the same Province as Galatia and Macedonia he calls this plain Scripture evidence and practice for the erecting particular distinct Congregations who denies that but I see nothing like a proof of distinct Churches in the same City which was the thing to be proved but because it could not be proved was prudently let alone whereas we have plain Scripture evidence that all the Christians of a City though never so great made but one Church and uncontroulable evidence from Antiquity that the neighbouring Christians were laid to the Church of the City All that he saith further to this matter is that such Churches had power to rule and govern themselves because in every one of them Elders were ordained Act.
14. 22. which is again an argument on our side for if we compare Act. 14. 22. with Titus 1. 5. we shall find that ordaining Elders 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 hath the same importance with ordaining them 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 so that by the Church is understood the Body of Christians inhabiting in one City as the ' 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 at Athens was the whole Corporation here and particular Congregations are but like the several Companies all which together make up but one City Sect. 6. 3. Dr. O. saith that the Christians of one City might not exceed the bounds of a particular Church or Congregation although they had a multiplication of Bishops or Elders in them and occasional distinct Assemblies for some Acts of Divine Worship Then say I the notion of a Church is not limited in Scripture to a single Congregation For if occasional Assemblies be allowed for some Acts of Worship why not for others if the number of Elders be unlimitted then every one of these may attend the occasional distinct Assemblies for Worship and yet all together make up the Body of one Church to which if he had but allowed a single Bishop over these he had made up that representation of a Church which we have from the best and purest Antiquity And so Origen compares the Churches of Athens Corinth and Alexandria with the Corporations in those Cities the number of Presbyters with the Senates of the Cities and at last the Bishop with the Magistrate But Dr. O. adds that when they did begin to exceed in number beyond a just proportion for Edification they did immediately erect other Churches among them or near them Name any one new Church erected in the same City and I yield And what need a new Church when himself allows occasional distinct Assemblies for greater Edification But he names the Church at Cenchrea which was a Port to the City of Corinth because of the mighty increase of Believers at Corinth Act. 18. 10. with Rom. 16. 1. I answer 1. It seems then there was such an increase at Corinth as made them plant a distinct Church and yet at Ephesus where Saint Paul used extraordinary diligence and had great success there was no need of any new and distinct Church And at Corinth he staid but a year and six months but at Ephesus three years as the time is set down in the Acts. Doth not this look very improbably 2. Stephanus Byzant reckons Cenchrea as a City distinct from Corinth and so doth Strabo who placeth it in the way from Tegea to Argos through the Parthenian Mountain and it is several times mentioned by Thucydides as distinct from Corinth and so it is most likely was a Church originally planted there and not formed from the too great fulness of the Church of Corinth As to the Church of Ierusalem he saith that the 5000 Converts were so disposed of or so dispersed that some years after there was such a Church there as did meet together in one place as occasion did require even the whole multitude of the Brethren nor was their number greater when they went unto Pella To which I answer 1. the force of the Argument lies in the 5000 being said to be added to the Church before any dispersion or persecution In which time we must suppose a true Church to be formed and the Christians at that time performing the Acts of Church-communion the Question then is whether it be in the least probable that 5000 persons should at that time make one stated and fixed Congregation for Divine Worship and all the Acts of Church-communion What place was there large enough to receive them when they met for Prayer and Sacraments Dr. O. was sensible of this inconvenience and therefore onely speaks of the Church of Ierusalem when these were dispersed but my question was about them while they were together Were they not a Church then Did they not continue in the apostles Doctrine and Fellowship and breaking of Bread and Prayers But how could 5000 then doe all this together Therefore a Church according to its first Institution is not limited to a single Congregation 2. A Church consisting of many Congregations may upon extraordinary occasions assemble together as the several Companies in a Common-Hall for matters of general concernment which yet manage their particular interests apart so for Acts of Worship and Christian Communion particular Congregations may meet by themselves but when any thing happens of great concernment they may occasionally assemble together as in the two debates mentioned Act. 15. 4. and 21. 22. so the several Tribes in Athens did at their general Assemblies which Strabo and Eustathius say were 174. 3. There is no number mentioned of the Christians that went to Pella neither by Eusebius nor Epiphanius who relate the story so that nothing can thence be concluded but if the force lies in his calling Pella a Village I am sure Eusebius calls it a City of Peraea beyond Iordan and Epiphanius adds that they spread themselves from thence to Coelesyria and Decapolis and Basanitis So that all this put together makes no proof at all that the Christian Churches by their first Institution were limited to single Congregations Sect. 7. 4. He answers that he cannot discern the least necessity of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter since the nature of the thing and the duty of men doth indispensably require it But is it not Dr. O. that saith that the Institution of Churches and the Rules for their disposal and Government throughout the world are the same stable and unalterable Are all these Rules now come to nothing but what follows from the nature of the thing Is it not Dr. O. that saith that no religious Vnion or Order among Christians is of spiritual use and advantage to them but what is appointed and designed for them by Iesus Christ Doth not this overthrow any other Order or Vnion among Christians but what Christ hath instituted and appointed for them The Question is not about such a Constitution of Churches as is necessary for performing the duties of religious Worship for all Parties are agreed therein but whether church-Church-power be limited to these exclusively to all other Vnions of Christians whether every single Congregation hath all Church-power wholly in it self and unaccountably as to subordination to any other How doth this appear from the nature of the thing and the necessary duties of Christians I grant the Institution of Churches was for Edification And I think a great deal of that Edification lies in the orderly disposal of things Whatever tends to Peace and Vnity among Christians in my judgment tends to Edification Now I cannot apprehend how a sole Power of Government in every Congregation tends to the preserving this Peace and Vnity among Christians much less how it follows so clearly from the nature of the thing as to take away
the need of any positive Rule or Direction in this matter And here the main Controversie lies between us and the Congregational Churches Is there no positive Rule or Direction in this matter then it follows as much from the nature of the thing that since Peace and Order is to be kept up among Churches as well as Persons every single Congregation ought not to engross church-Church-power to it self but to stand accountable for the management of it to those who are intrusted with the immediate care of the Churches Peace And I cannot yet see by all that hath been said how those that break the established Order in a Church wherein all the substantials of Religion are acknowledged to be sound and set up particular Independent Churches in opposition to it can acquit themselves from the Guilt of Schism how great and intolerable soever it be thought As to what concerns the Churches in the Houses of Priscilla and Aquila and Nymphas and Philemon I say that this is to be understood not of a Church meeting in their Houses but of their own Families was pleaded by the dissenting Brethren who say most of our Divines are of that Opinion and therefore the Argument holds against them And from Dr. O.'s Discourse I less understand than I did before what obligation of Conscience can be upon any when they may serve God in their Families in opposition to Laws to keep up such publick Congregations as are forbidden by them For 1. he grants that a Church may be in a Family although a Family as such be not a Church Then the members of a Family submitting to the Government of the Master as their Pastour are a true Church for a Church he saith may consist onely of the Persons that belong to a Family Then there is no necessity of going out of a Family for the Acts of Church-communion especially when the addition of four more may provide sufficiently for all the Officers they believe necessary to the making up a Church 2. All that he saith is that there is no such example given of Churches in private Families in Scriptures as should restrain the extent of Churches from Congregations of many Families And what then the Question is not now whether they be lawfull but whether they be necessary for nothing less than a Divine Command can justifie the breach of a plain Law but where is that Command Doth not Dr. O. appeal to the nature of the thing and the indispensable duties of men with respect to the end of Churches as his great Rule in these cases But which of all these necessary duties may not be performed within the terms of the Law so that no obligation can arise from thence to have Congregations of many Families All that he saith further as to this matter is that if through non-compliance any disturbance happen the blame will be found lying upon those who would force others to forego their Primitive Constitution Then it seems at last the Primitive Constitution is come to be the ground of non-compliance which in this case amounts to separation But this primitive Constitution had need be far better proved before it can be thought a good ground for breaking the Peace of the Church and the Laws of the Land and much more before it can carry off the blame from the persons who break Orders and Laws to the Makers of them All men no doubt that ever broke Laws if this Plea would be admitted would transfer the blame upon those that made them And so much for the Plea of the Congregational Party Sect. 8. 2. I now come to consider the Plea of those who hold our Diocesan Episcopacy to be unlawfull In my Sermon as it is printed I set down this saying of Mr. Baxter That to devise new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and to call all Dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Which I said doth suppose Congregational Churches to be so much the Institution of Christ that any other Constitution above these is both unlawfull and insupportable which is more than the Independent Brethren themselves do assert Now for our better understanding Mr. B. 's meaning we must consider his design in that place from whence those words are quoted 1. He saith Christ hath instituted onely Congregational or Parochial Churches 2. That Diocesan Episcopacy is a new species of Churches devised by men without God's Authority and imposed in such a manner that those are called Schismaticks who dissent from it 3. That such an imposition is worse than that of Ceremonies and Liturgies and consequently affords a better plea for Separation But to prevent any misunderstanding of his meaning I will set down his own Cautions 1. That the Question is not whether every particular Church should have a Bishop with his Presbyters and Deacons i.e. whether every Rectour of a Parish be not a Bishop if he hath Curates under him This he calls Parochial Episcopacy 2. Nor whether these should have Archbishops over them as Successours to the Apostolical and general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office 3. Nor whether Partriarchs Diocesans and Lay-chancellours be lawfull as Officers of the King exercising under him such Government of the Church as belongeth to Kings to which in such exercise all Subjects must for conscience sake submit 4. Nor if Diocesans become the sole Bishops over many hundred Parishes all the Parochial Bishops and Parish Churches being put down and turned into Curates and Chappels whether a Minister ought yet to live quietly and peaceably under them You will ask then where lies this horrible imposition and intolerable usurpation It is in requiring the owning the lawfulness of this Diocesan Episcopacy and joyning with Parochial Churches as parts of it But wherein lies the unsufferable malignity of that 1. It is making a new species of Churches without God's Authority 2. It is overthrowing the species of God's making which according to Mr. B. requires two things 1. Local and presential Communion as he calls it i.e. That it consists onely of so many as can well meet together for Church Society 2. The full exercise of Discipline within it self by the Pastours which being taken away they are onely Curates and their Meetings Oratories and no Churches This I think is a true and fair representation of Mr B. 's opinion in this matter Which tending so apparently to overthrow our present Constitution as insupportable and to justifie separation from our Parochial Churches as members of a Diocesan Church Therefore to vindicate the Constitution of our Church I shall undertake these three things 1. To shew that our Diocesan Episcopacy is the same for substance which was in the Primitive Church 2. That it is not repugnant to any Institution of Christ nor devising a new
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
cited out of his History but not one that comes near any proof of this matter The 1. proves that in a time of Persecution at Alexandria nineteen Presbyters and Deacons were banished to Heliopolis in Phoenicia where there were no Christians Therefore in Theodoret's time there was no Diocesan Episcopacy The 2. shews that in a small City of Thebais Whither Eulogius and Protogenes were banished and there were but a few Christians yet there was a Bishop Who ever denied this where there was a prospect of converting more as appears by the endeavours of Eulogius and Protogenes there But he ought to have proved that as the Christians increased new Bishops were made which this is very far from The 3. proves that Lucius of Alexandria was made Bishop by force without any Synod of Bishops or Choice of the Clergy or Request of the People I suppose by this time Mr. B. had forgotten what he promised to prove from Theodoret. But I wonder how it came into his mind to say the Church of Alexandria at that time was like a Presbyterian Church which I am sure he had not from Theodoret nor from the Epistle of Peter of Alexandria The 4. is intended to prove that in the time of Valens the Patriarchal Orthodox Church of Alexandria was but one Assembly which met onely in one place at once But it is very unhappy that Theodoret shews just the contrary in that place for he saith that Valens expelled the Orthodox Christians out of their Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 are his very words to whom he saith Iovianus had likewise given the new built Church Which Mr. B. thus translates Valens found the Orthodox even in the great Patriarchial City of Antioch in possession but of one Church which good Jovinian the Emperour had given them of which he dispossessed them I desire any one who relies on Mr. B.'s skill and fidelity in these matters but to compare this Translation with the Text in Theodoret and I dare say he will see cause to admire it But if any one can imagin that the Patriarchal Church of Antioch in the time of Valens could consist but of one Congregation for my part I must give him over as one uncapable of being convinced of any thing by me I do not speak what the Church in a time of great persecution might be driven to but of what it was in its settled state The 5. is from Terentius his begging One Church for the Orthodox of Valens which saith Mr. B. intimates their numbers I am ashamed to reade much more to confute such arguments as these For if the Papists should desire the liberty but of one Church in London doth that prove they are no more than can make one Congregation The 6. proves that Maris was made Bishop of Dolicha a small Town infected with Arianism It is true Theodoret saith Doliche was a little City and so he tells us Cyrus was no great one but he doth not set down the bounds of the Diocese which for any thing we see in Theodoret might be as large as we have evidently proved from him the Diocese of Cyrrhus was Let the Reader now judge whether Theodoret doth not plainly overthrow Mr. B.'s notion of Parochial Episcopacy But Mr. B. insists upon the Institution of Christ and if Christ hath appointed one sort of Churches viz. for personal Communion and men make another is not this a violation of Christ's Command and setting up Man against God I see no evidence produced for any such Institution of Christ which limits Episcopal Power to a single Congregation and therefore the extending it to more can be no violation of Christ's Command or setting up a new species of Churches as will appear from Mr. B. himself under the next particular Yet Mr. B. according to his wonted meekness towards his Adversaries charges me for speaking against this principle of his with pleading for presumption profanation usurpation uncharitableness schism what not What is the reason of all this rage and bitterness Why I set down a saying of his as going beyond the Independents in making the devising new species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without God's Authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies But is not all this true supposing that such new species of Churches be so devised and so imposed That is not to the business for that which I quoted it for was to shew that Mr. B. looked upon all Churches beyond Parochial as Churches meerly of mens devising and that to charge men with Schism for opposing any such Constitution is unreasonable and that the imposing it as Divine is an intolerable usurpation and all this at the same time when he pretends to write for Peace and Concord My business is now to shew Sect. 11. 2. That such an Episcopacy as is practised here and was so in the Primitive Church is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing repugnant to any Institution of Christ. And to prove this I need no more than one of Mr. B. ' s own Cautions in his Premonition viz. that he doth not dispute the lawfulness of Archbishops as he calls them over Parochial Bishops as Successours to the Apostolical and other general Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office And what he saith in his own name and others in his Plea for Peace There are some of us that much incline to think that Archbishops that is Bishops that have oversight of many Churches with their Pastours are lawfull Successours of the Apostles in the ordinary part of their Work But I cannot here omit Mr. Baxter ' s Arguments to prove that the Ordinary governing part of the Apostolical Office was settled for all following Ages 1. Because we reade of the settling of that form but we never reade of any abolition discharge or cessation of the Institution 〈…〉 affirm a cessation without proof we seem to accuse God of mutability as settling one form of Government for one Age onely and no longer 3. We leave room for audacious Wits accordingly to question other Gospel Institutions as Pastours Sacraments c. and to say they were but for an Age. 4. It was general Officers Christ promised to be with to the end of the world Matt. 28. 20. Which being joyned with the Consent of the Christian Church of the Ages succeeding the Apostles that the Apostles did leave Successours in the care and Government of Churches have a great deal of weight in them and overballance the difficulties on the other side As upon this occasion I think fit to declare From whence I argue thus That which is onely a Continuance of the same kind of Churches which were in being in the Apostolical times is no devising a new species of Churches nor hath any thing
repugnant to any Institution of Christ. But that is the case as to our Episcopacy We intend no quarrel about names If it be Mr. B. ' s pleasure to call our Bishops Archbishops let him enjoy his own fancy It already appears from Saint Cyprian and might much more be made plain from many others if it were needfull that the Bishops of the several Churches were looked on as Successours to the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches Now the Office of Mr. B. ' s Parochial Bishops was onely to attend to one particular Congregation but the Apostolical Office was above this while the Apostles held it in their own hands and did not make a new species of Churches nor overthrow the Constitution of Parochial Churches It seems then a strange thing to me that the continuance of the same kind of Office in the Church should be called the devising a new species of Churches But Mr. B. runs upon this perpetual mistake that our English Episcopacy is not a succession to the Ordinary part of the Apostolical Power in Governing Churches but a new sort of Episcopacy not heard of in the ancient Church which swallows up the whole Power of Presbyters and leaves them onely a bare name of Curates and destroyes the being of Parochial Churches But if I can make the contrary to appear from the Frame and Constitution of this Church I hope Mr. B. will be reconciled to our Episcopal Government and endeavour to remove the prejudices he hath caused in Peoples minds against it Sect. 12. Now to examin this let us consider two things 1. What Power is left to Presbyters in our Church 2. What Authority the Bishops of our Church have over them I. What Power is left to presbyters in our Church and that may be considered two ways 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church 2. With respect to their particular Congregations or Cures 1. With respect to the whole Body of this Church and so 1. There are no Rules of Discipline no Articles of Doctrine no Form of Divine Service are to be allowed or received in this Nation but by the Constitution of this Church the Presbyters of it have their Votes in passing them either in Person or by Proxy For all things of that Nature are to pass both Houses of Convocation and the lower House consists wholly of Presbyters who represent the whole Presbytery of the Nation either appearing by their own Right as many do or as being chosen by the rest from whom by Indentures they either do or ought to receive Power to transact things in their names And the Custom of this Church hath sometimes been for the Clergy of the Dioceses to give limited Proxies in particular Cases to their Procuratours Now I appeal to any man of understanding whether the Clergy of this Church have their whole Power swallowed up by the Bishops when yet the Bishops have no power to oblige them to any Rules or Canons but by their own consent and they do freely vote in all things of common concernment to the Church and therefore the Presbyters are not by the Constitution deprived of their share in one of the greatest Rights of Government viz. in making Rules for the whole Body And in this main part of Government the Bishops do nothing without the Counsel of their Presbyters and in this respect our Church falls behind none of the ancient Churches which had their Councils of Presbyters together with their Bishops onely there they were taken singly in every City and here they are combined together in Provincial Synods model'd according to the Laws of the Nation And when the whole Body of Doctrine Discipline and Worship are thus agreed upon by a general consent there seems to be far less need of the particular Councils of Presbyters to every Bishop since both Bishops and Presbyters are now under fixed Rules and are accountable for the breach of them 2. In giving Orders by the Rules of this Church four Presbyters are to assist the Bishops and to examin the Persons to be Ordained or the Bishop in their presence and afterwards to joyn in the laying on of hands upon the Persons ordained And is all this nothing but to be the Bishop's Curates and to officiate in some of his Chapels 2. As to their particular charges one would think those who make this objection had never read over the Office of Ordination for therein 1. For the Epistle is read the charge given by Saint Paul to the Elders at Miletus Act. 20. or the third Chapter of the first Epistle to Timothy concerning the Office of a Bishop What a great impertinency had both these been if the Presbyters Power had been quite swallowed up by the Bishops But it hence appears that our Church looked on the Elders at Ephesus and the Bishop in Timothy to be Presbyters as yet under the care and Government of the Apostles or such as they deputed for that Office such as Timothy and Titus were Which I suppose is the true meaning of Saint Ierome and many other doubtfull passages of Antiquity which relate to the community of the names of Bishop and Presbyter while the Apostles governed the Church themselves And at this time Timothy being appointed to this part of the Apostolical Office of Government the Bishops mentioned in the Epistle to him may well enough be the same with the Presbyters in the Epistle to Titus who was appointed to ordain Elders in every City Titus 1. 5. 2. In the Bishop's Exhortation to them that are to be ordained he saith Now we exhort you in the name of the Lord Iesus Christ to have in remembrance into how high a dignity and to how chargeable an Office ye be called that is to say the Messengers and Watchmen the Pastours and Stewards of the Lord to teach to premonish to feed and provide for the Lord's Family c. have always therefore printed in your remembrance how great a treasure is committed to your charge for they be the Sheep of Christ which he bought with his death and for whom he shed his bloud The Church and Congregation whom you must serve is his Spouse and Body And if it shall chance the same Church or any member thereof to take any hurt or hinderance by reason of your negligence you know the greatness of the fault and of the horrible punishment which will ensue c. Is this the language of a Church which deprives Presbyters of the due care of their flocks and makes Parochial Congregations to be no Churches 3. The person to be ordained doth solemnly promise to give faithfull diligence to minister the Doctrine and Sacraments and the Discipline of Christ as the Lord hath commanded and as this Realm hath received the same according to the Commandments of God so that he may teach the People committed to his Cure and charge with all diligence to keep and observe the same Here we see a Cure and charge
committed to the Presbyters Preaching and Administration of Sacraments required of them and the exercise of Discipline as far as belongs to them of which afterwards but now in the Consecration of a Bishop this part is left out and instead of that it is said That he is called to the Government of the Church and he is required to correct and punish such as be unquiet disobedient and criminous in his Diocese So that the more particular charge of Souls is committed to every Pastour over his own Flock and the general care of Government and Discipline is committed to the Bishop as that which especially belongs to his Office as distinct from the other Sect. 13. II. Which is the next thing to be considered viz. What Authority the Bishop hath by virtue of his Consecration in this Church And that I say is what Mr. B. calls the ordinary parts of the Apostolical Authority which lies in three things Government Ordination and Censures And that our Church did believe our Bishops to succeed the Apostles in those parts of their Office I shall make appear by these things 1. In the Preface before the Book of Ordination it is said That it is evident unto all men diligently reading holy Scripture and ancient Authours that from the Apostles time there have been these Orders of Ministers in Christ's Church Bishops Priests and Deacons What is the reason that they express it thus from the Apostles time rather than in the Apostles times but that they believed while the Apostles lived they managed the affairs of Government themselves but as they withdrew they did in some Churches sooner and in some later as their own continuance the condition of the Churches and the qualification of Persons were commit the care and Government of Churches to such Persons whom they appointed thereto Of which we have an uncontroulable evidence in the Instances of Timothy and Titus for the care of Government was a distinct thing from the Office of an Evangelist and all their removes do not invalidate this because while the Apostles lived it is probable there were no fixed Bishops or but few But as they went off so they came to be settled in their several Churches And as this is most agreeable to the sense of our Church so it is the fairest Hypothesis for reconciling the different Testimonies of Antiquity For hereby the succession of Bishops is secured from the Apostles times for which the Testimonies of Irenaeus Tertullian Saint Cyprian and others are so plain hereby room is left to make good all that Saint Ierom hath said and what Epiphanius delivers concerning the differing settlements of Churches at first So that we may allow for the Community of names between Bishop and Presbyter for a while in the Church i. e. while the Apostles governed the Churches themselves but afterwards that which was then part of the Apostolical Office became the Episcopal which hath continued from that time to this by a constant succession in the Church 2. Archbishop Whitgift several times declares that these parts of the Apostolical Office still remained in the Bishops of our Church As for this part of the Apostles function saith he to visit such Churches as were before planted and to provide that such were placed in them as were vertuous and godly Pastours I know it remaineth still and is one of the chief parts of the Bishops function And again there is now no planting of Churches nor going through the whole world there is no writing of new Gospels no prophesying of things to come but there is Governing of Churches visiting of them reforming of Pastours and directing of them which is a portion of the Apostolical function Again Although that this part of the Apostolical Office which did consist in planting and founding of Churches through the whole world is ceased yet the manner of Government by placing Bishops in every City by moderating and Governing them by visiting the Churches by cutting off schisms and contentions by ordering Ministers remaineth still and shall continue and is in this Church in the Archbishops and Bishops as most meet men to execute the same Bishop Bilson fully agrees as to these particulars 1. That the Apostles did not at first commit the Churches to the Government of Bishops but reserved the chief power of Government in their own hands 2. That upon experience of the confusion and disorder which did arise through equality of Pastours did appoint at their departures certain approved men to be Bishops 3. That these Bishops did succeed the Apostles in the care and Government of Churches as he proves at large and therefore he calls their function Apostolick Instead of many others which it were easie to produce I shall onely add the Testimony of King Charles I. in his debates about Episcopacy who understood the Constitution of our Church as well as any Bishop in it and defended it with as clear and as strong a Reason In his third Paper to Henderson he hath these words Where you find a Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture to be one and the same which I deny to be always so it is in the Apostles times now I think to prove the Order of Bishops succeeded that of the Apostles and that the name was chiefly altered in reverence to those who were immediately chosen by our Saviour In his first Paper at the Treaty at Newport he thus states the case about Episcopal Government I conceive that Episcopal Government is most consonant to the word of God and of an Apostolical Institution as it appears by the Scriptures to have been practised by the Apostles themselves and by them committed and derived to particular persons as their substitutes or successours therein as for ordaining Presbyters and Deacons giving Rules concerning Christian Discipline and exercising Censures over Presbyters and others and hath ever since to these last times been exercised by Bishops in all the Churches of Christ and therefore I cannot in conscience consent to abolish the said Government In his Reply to the first Answer of the Divines he saith that meer Presbyters are Episcopi Gregis onely they have the oversight of the Flock in the duties of Preaching Administration of Sacraments publick Prayer Exhorting Rebuking c. but Bishops are Episcopi Gregis Pastorum too having the oversight of Flock and Pastours within their several precincts in the Acts of external Government And that although the Apostles had no Successours in eundem gradum as to those things that were extraordinary in them as namely the Measure of their Gifts the extent of their charge the infallibility of their Doctrine and the having seen Christ in the flesh but in those things that were not extraordinary and such those things are to be judged which are necessary for the service of the Church in all times as the Office of Teaching and the Power of Governing are they were to have and had Successours and therefore the learned and godly Fathers
would destroy the Peace and Vnity if not the very being of any Parochial Church whatsoever 5. That want of Discipline which is in Parochial Churches was never thought by the most zealous Non-conformists of old destructive to the Being of them Of which I have already produced the Testimonies of Cartwright Hildersham Giffard and many others Sect. 17. And supposing all persons left to the judgment of their own Consciences as to their own fitness for the Holy Communion we may observe these things which may serve towards the vindication of our Parochial Churches 1. That the greatest Offenders do generally excommunicate themselves not daring to venture upon so hazardous a thing as they account the holy Communion to be for fear of the damnation following unworthy receiving So that the most constant Communicants are the most pious and sober and devout Christians 2. That if any such do voluntarily come it is upon some great awakenings of Conscience some fresh resolutions they have made of amendment of life after some dangerous sickness or under some great affliction when they are best inclined and have strong convictions and hope for greater strength of Grace against the power of Temptations So that whether this Sacrament be a converting Ordinance or not by God's Institution yet the preparation and disposition of men's minds before it puts them into the fittest capacity for Divine Grace if they be not looked on as the effects of it 3. That it is no prejudice to the benefit of this holy Sacrament to those who are well prepared if those who are not do come to it any more than in joyning in Prayer or Thanksgiving with them And if the presence of such persons who deserve excommunication and are not excommunicated do overthrow the being of a Church then Christ and his Disciples did not make a Church when Iudas was present with them as in probability he was at his last Supper At least if this kind of Discipline had been so necessary it would never have been left so doubtfull as it is by the Evangelists since it had been necessary for the information of the Christian Church to have set it down expresly not onely that he was not present but that he ought not to be and therefore was cast out before 4. That several Presbyterian Churches for many years had no Discipline at all among them nor so much as the Lord's Supper administred And were these true Churches all that while and are not ours so now Nay Mr. Baxter saith That some Non-conformists have these seventeen or eighteen years forborn to Baptize or administer the Lord's Supper or to be Pastours of any Churches Now I would fain know what Churches these men are of Some or other they must own if they be Christians New Churches they have not they say either then they must own our Churches to be true notwithstanding the defect of Discipline or they must be of no Church at all 5. That our Church is but in the same condition the Church of Constantinople and other Churches were in when Nectarius changed the Discipline of it or rather took it quite away For the Poenitentiary whom he removed for the scandal given was the Person whose business it was to look after the Discipline of the Church and to see that all known Offenders performed the Penance enjoyned them for satisfaction of the Church And the consequence of it Socrates saith was That every one was left to the judgment of his own Conscience as to the participation of the holy Mysteries And this Socrates saith he had from Eudaemon himself who gave the Counsel to Nectarius to take that Office away which was accordingly done and no more restored saith Sozomen the consequence whereof was saith he that every one went to the Lord's Table 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 as his Conscience gave him leave and as he was assured in his own mind And this example of Nectarius was soon followed in other Churches saith Sozomen and so the Discipline of the Church decayed But I hope all those Churches did not lose their being by the loss of Discipline And so much in vindication of our Diocesan Church Government Sect. 18. I now come to the National Constitution of our Church By the Church of England I said we meant that Society of Christian People which in this Nation are united under the same Profession of Faith the same Laws of Government and Rules of Divine Worship And that this was a very consistent and true notion of our National Church I proved from the first notion of a Church which is a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of Christian Religion And since the lowest kind of that Society viz. Congregations for Worship are called Churches since the largest Society of all Christians is accounted a true Catholick Church and both from their union and consent in some common thing I said I did not understand why a National Society agreeing together in the same Faith and under the same Government and Discipline might not be as truly and properly a Church as any particular Congregations Because the narrowness or largeness of extent doth not alter the nature of the thing the Kingdom of France being as truly a Kingdom as the small Kingdom of Ivetot and as several Families make one Kingdom so several lesser Churches make one National And that this notion was not disagreeing with the importance of the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 I shewed that at Athens from whence the word was taken it did comprehend in it all the several Tribes when met together although every one of those Tribes in its particular Assembly might be an 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 too and from thence in the first Ages of the Christian Church the name of a Church comprehended in it the Ecclesiastical Governours and People of whole Cities and therefore might by parity of Reason be extended to many Cities united together under one civil Government and the same Rules of Religion This is the substance of what I delivered upon this subject against which all my Adversaries have something to say though not with equal strength clearness or temper Dr. Owen saith 1. That since I make National Churches to begin with the dissolution of the Roman Empire it fell out a great while after the first Institution of Churches and therefore they are not concerned in it because he supposeth Congregational Churches to be entire Churches of Christ's Institution and therefore to have a just right to govern and reform themselves independently as to any National Constitution To which I answer that if the Churches of Christs Institution be not limited to particular Congregations as I have already proved then the gradual increase of Churches till they came to be National doth not alter any Institution of Christ and consequently the Power of those Churches must limit and determin that of particular Congregations or else nothing but disorder
and confusion will follow if every Congregation may have a several Rule of Worship and Doctrine of Faith without being liable to an account to any superiour Church Authority Which is all one as to suppose that every Family may govern it self because a Kingdom is made up of Families without any respect to the Laws and Constitution of a Kingdom No saith Dr. O. the case is not the same For God never appointed that there should be no other Government but that of Families And where hath he appointed that there should be no other Churches but particular Congregations But God by the Light and Law of Nature by the ends and use of the Creation of man by express Revelation in his Word hath by his own Authority appointed and approved other sorts of Civil Government So say I that God by the Light and Law of Reason by the ends and use of a Christian Society by express Institution of the Apostolical function in the care and Government of many Churches did declare that he did appoint and approve other sorts of Church Government besides that of particular Congregations For if God upon the dispersion of the Nations after the Floud had appointed twelve Princes to have ruled the People in their several dispersions it had been a plain demonstration he did not intend the several Families to have a distinct and independent Power within themselves but that they ought to be governed according to their appointment so in the case of Churches since Christ did appoint twelve Apostles to plant settle and govern Churches and set up Rulers in them but still under their Authority can any thing be plainer than that these particular Churches were not settled with an entire power of governing themselves But as in the former case if we suppose those twelve Princes to have led out their several Divisions and to have placed them in convenient Seats and given them general Rules for governing themselves in Peace and Order under such as they should appoint and as they found themselves decaying should nominate so many Successours as they thought fit for the ruling the several Colonies were they not then obliged to submit to such Governours Without breaking in pieces into so many Families every Master governing his family by himself which would certainly ruin and destroy them all because they could not have strength and union to defend themselves So it is again in the case of Churches The Apostles planted them and settled such Officers in them as were then fit to teach and govern them still reserving the main care of Government to themselves but giving excellent Rules of Charity Peace Obedience and Submission to Governours and as they withdrew from particular Churches within such a precinct as Crete was they appointed some whom they thought fit to take care of all those Churches and to constitute inferiour Officers to teach and rule them and therefore in this case here is no more independency in particular Congregations than in the other as to private Families which is as contrary to the general design of the Peace and Vnity of Christians and their mutual preservation and defence as in the former case In which we believe the civil Government to be from God although no Monarch can now derive his Title from such Princes at the first dispersion and would it not then seem unreasonable to question the succession of Bishops from the Apostles when the matter of fact is attested by the most early knowing honest and impartial Witnesses Lastly as in the former case several of those lesser Princes might unite themselves together by joynt-consent for their common interest and security and become one Kingdom so in the latter case several Bishops with the Churches under them might for promoting the common ends of Christianity and the Peace and establishment of their Churches joyn together under the same common bonds and become one National Church which being intended for the good of the whole so united and no ways repugnant to the design of the Institution and not usurping upon the Rights of others nor assuming more than can be managed as an universal Pastour must doe will appear to be no ways repugnant to any particular command or general Rules of the Gospel as the Pope's challenge of universal Dominion over the Church is Which I therefore mention that any one may see that the force of this Reasoning will never justifie the Papal Vsurpations But saith Dr. O. National Provincial Churches must first be proved of Christ's Institution before they can be allowed to have their power given them by Iesus Christ. And yet in the case of Congregational Churches he saith there is no need of any positive Rule or direction for the Nature of the thing it self and the duty of men with respect to the end of such Churches is sufficient for it And this is as much as we plead in behalf of National Churches viz. What the nature of a Christian Society and the duty of men with respect to the end of it doth require For whatever tends to the support of Religion to the preserving Peace and Vnity among Christians to the preventing dangerous Errours and endless confusions from the very nature of the thing and the end of a Christian Society becomes a Duty For the general Rules of Government lay an obligation upon men to use the best means for advancing the ends of it It being then taken for granted among all Christians 1. That Christ is the Authour or founder of this Society which we call the Church 2. That he designs the continuance and preservation of it 3. That the best way of its preservation is by an Vnion of the members of it provided the Union be such as doth not overthrow the ends of it We may reasonably infer that whatever tends to promote this Vnion and to prevent any notable inconveniencies or mischiefs which may happen to it is within the design of the first Institution although it be not contained in express words Sect. 19. We are now therefore to consider whether single Congregations dispersed and disunited over a Nation or a combination of them together under some common bonds as to Faith Government and Worship be the more likely way to promote Religion to secure the Peace and Tranquillity of a Church Let us then compare these two Hypotheses together in point of Reason as to these ends In the Congregational way there may be as many Religions as Churches I do not say there are but we are arguing now upon what may be from the nature of the thing Supposing then every Congregation to have an entire and unaccountable Power within it self what hinders but of ten Congregations one may be of Socinians another of Papists another of Arians another of Quakers another of Anabaptists c. and it may be no two of them of the same mind But if they be it is meer chance and good hap there being no obligation upon them to have any more
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.
Concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church 1. Concerning the difference between a Christian Kingdom and a National Church A Christian Kingdom he saith they all own but this is onely equivocally called a Church but he saith the Christian Bishops for 1300 years were far from believing that a Prince or Civil Power was essential to a Christian Church or that the Church in the common sense was not constituted of another sort of regent part that had the Power of the Keys If there be any such Christians in the world that hold a Prince an essential part of a Christian Church let Mr. Baxter confute them but I am none of them for I do believe there were Christian Churches before Christian Princes that there are Christian Churches under Christian Princes and will be such if there were none left I do believe the Power of the Keys to be a distinct thing from the Office of the Civil Magistrate and if he had a mind to write against such an opinion he should have rather sent it to his learned sincere and worthy Friend Lewis du Moulin if he had been still living But if I onely mean a Christian Kingdom who denies it saith he If all this confused stir be about a Christian Kingdom be it known to you that we take such to be of divine Command Nay farther if we mean all the Churches of a Kingdom associated for Concord as equals we deny it not What is it then that is so denied and disputed against and such a flood of words is poured out about It seems at last it is this that the Nation must be one Church as united in one Saccrdotal head personal or collective Monarchical or Aristocratical Before I answer this Question I hope I may ask another whence comes this zeal now against a National Church For when the Presbyterians were in power they were then for National Churches and thought they proved them out of Scriptures and none of these subtilties about the Constitutive Regent part did ever perplex or trouble them Thus the Presbyterian London Ministers 1654. made no difficulty of owning National Churches and particularly the Church of England in these words And if all the Churches in the world are called one Church let no man be offended if all the Congregations in England be called the Church of England But this you will say is by association of equal Churches No they say it is when the particular Congregations of one Nation living under one Civil Government agreeing in Doctrine and Worship are governed by their greater and lesser Assemblies and in this sense say they we assert a National Church Two things saith Mr. Hudson are required to make a National Church 1. National agreement in the same Faith and Worship 2. National union in one Ecclesiastical body in the same Community of Ecclesiastical Government The old Non-conformists had no scruple about owning the Church of England and thought they understood what was meant by it Whence come all these difficulties now to be raised about this matter Is the thing grown so much darker than formerly But some mens Understandings are confounded with nice distinctions and their Consciences ensnared by needless Scruples To give therefore a plain answer to the Question what we mean by the National Church of England By that is understood either 1 the Church of England diffusive Or 2 The Church of England representative 1. The National Church of England diffusive is the whole Body of Christians in this Nation consisting of Pastours and People agreeing in that Faith Government and Worship which are established by the Laws of this Realm And by this description any one may see how easily the Church of England is distinguished from the Papists on one side and the Dissenters on the other Which makes me continue my wonder at those who so confidently say they cannot tell what we mean by the Church of England For was there not a Church here settled upon the Reformation in the time of Edward 6. and Queen Elizabeth Hath not the same Doctrine the same Government the same manner of Worship continued in this Church bating onely the interruption given by its Enemies How comes it then so hard for men to understand so easy so plain so intelligible a thing If all the Question be how all the Congregations in England make up this one Church I say by unity of consent as all particular Churches make one Catholick Church If they ask how it comes to be one National Church I say because it was received by the common consent of the whole Nation in Parlament as other Laws of the Nation are and is universally received by all that obey those Laws And tâ—is I think is sufficient to scatter those mists which some pretend to have before their eyes that they cannot clearly see what we mean by the Church of England 2. The representative Church of England is the Bishops and Presbyters of this Church meeting together according to the Laws of this Realm to consult and advise about matters of Religion And this is determin'd by the allowed Canons of this Church We do not say that the Convocation at Westminster is the representative Church of England as the Church of England is a National Church for that is onely representative of this Province there being another Convocation in the other Province but the Consent of both Convocations is the representative National Church of England Sect. 21. And now to answer Mr. Baxter's grand difficulty concerning the Constitutive Regent part of this National Church I say 1. It proceeds upon a false supposition 2. It is capable of a plain resolution 1. That it proceeds upon a false supposition which is that whereever there is the true Notion of a Church there must be a Constitutive Regent part i. e. there must be a standing Governing Power which is an essential part of it Which I shall prove to be false from Mr. Baxter himself He asserts that there is one Catholick visible Church and that all particular Churches which are headed by their particular Bishops or Pastours are parts of this Vniversal Church as a Troop is of an Army or a City of a Kingdom If this Doctrine be true and withall it be necessary that every Church must have a Constitutive Regent part as essential to it then it unavoidably follows that there must be a Catholick visible Head to a Catholick visible Church And so Mr. Baxter ' s Constitutive Regent part of a Church hath done the Pope a wonderfull kindness and made a very plausible Plea for his Vniversal Pastourship But there are some men in the world who do not attend to the advantages they give to Popery so they may vent their spleen against the Church of England But doth not Mr. Baxter say that the universal Church is headed by Christ himself I grant he doth but this doth not remove the difficulty for the Question is
about that visible Church whereof particular Churches are parts and they being visible parts do require a visible Constitutive Regent part as essential to them therefore the whole visible Church must have likewise a visible Constitutive Regent part i. e. a visible Head of the Church as if a Troop hath an inferiour Officer an Army must have a General if a City hath a Mayor a Kingdom must have a King that is equally present and visible as the other is This is indeed to make a Key for Catholicks by the help of which they may enter and take possession 2. The plain resolution is that we deny any necessity of any such Constitutive Regent part or one formal Ecclesiastical Head as essential to a National Church For a National Consent is as sufficient to make a National Church as an Vniversal Consent to make a Catholick Church But if the Question be by what way this National Consent is to be declared then we answer farther that by the Constitution of this Church the Archbishops Bishops and Presbyters being summoned by the King 's Writ are to advise and declare their Iudgments in matters of Religion which being received allowed and enacted by the King and three Estates of the Kingdom there is as great a National Consent as is required to any Law And all Bishops Ministers and People taken together who prâ—fess the Faith so established and worship God according to the Rules so appointed make up this National Church of England which notion of a National Church being thus explained I see no manner of difficulty remaining in all Mr. Baxter ' s Quaeries and Objections about this matter Sect. 22. 3. That which looks most like a difficulty is 3. concerning the common ties or Rules which make this National Church For Mr. B. would know whether by the common Rules I mean a Divine Rule or a meer humane Rule If it be a Divine Rule they are of the National Church as well as we if it be a humane Rule how comes consent in this to make a National Church how come they not to be of it for not consenting how can such a consent appear when there are differences among our selves This is the substance of what he objects To which I answer 1. Our Church is founded upon a Divine Rule viz. the Holy Scriptures which we own as the Basis and Foundation of our Faith and according to which all other Rules of Order and Worship are to be agreeable 2. Our Church requires a Conformity to those Rules which are appointed by it as agreeable to the word of God And so the Churches of New-England doe to the orders of Church Government among themselves by all that are members of their Churches and annex civil Privileges to them and their Magistrates impose civil Punishments on the breakers and disturbers of them And although they profess agreement in other things yet because they do not submit to the Orders of their Churches they do not own them as members of their Churches Why should it then be thought unreasonable with us not to account those members of the Church of England who contemn and disobey the Orders of it 3. There is no difference among our selves concerning the lawfulness of the Orders of our Church or the duty of submission to them If there be any other differences they are not material as to this business and I believe are no other than in the manner of explaining some things which may happen in the best Society in the world without breaking the Peace of it As about the difference of Orders the sense of some passages in the Athanasian Creed the true explication of one or two Articles which are the things he mentions A multitude of such differences will never overthrow such a Consent among us as to make us not to be members of the same National Church Sect. 23. Having thus cleared the main difficulties which are objected by my more weighty Adversaries the weaker assaults of the rest in what they differ from these will admit of a quicker dispatch Mr. A. objects 1. That if National Churches have Power to reform themselves then so have Congregational and therefore I do amiss to charge them with Separation I grant it if he proves that no Congregational Church hath any more Power over it than a National Church hath i. e. that there is as much evidence against both Episcopal and Presbyterial Government as there is against the Pope's Vsurpations When he doth prove that he may have a farther answer 2. That National Churches destroy the being of other Churches under them this I utterly deny and there wants nothing but Proof as Erasmus said one Andrelinus was a good Poet onely his Verses wanted one Syllable and that was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 3. By my description the Parlament may be a National Church for they are a Society of men united together for their Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion But did I not immediately before say that National Churches are National Societies of Christians under the same Laws of Government and Rules of Worship from whence it is plain that in the next words when I went about to prove National Churches to be true Churches I used such a general description as was common to any kind of Church and not proper to a National Church 4. He gives this reason why consent should not make National Churches as well as Congregational because it must be such an agreement as the Gospel warrants and that is onely for Worship and not to destroy their own being This is the reasoning of a horse in a mill still round about the same thing And therefore the same answer may serve 5. Out come Mr. B.'s Objections against a visible Head of this National Church and the manner of union and the differences among our selves as though Mr. B. could not manage his own Arguments and therefore he takes them and strips them of their heavy and rusty Armour and makes them appear again in the field in another dress and if they could not stand the field in the former habit they can much less doe it in this The Authour of the Letter saith I onely prove a National Church a possible thing He clearly mistakes my design which was to shew that if there be such a thing as a National Church then no single Congregations have such a power in themselves to separate from others in matters of order and decency where there is a consent in the same Faith To prove that there was such a thing I shewed that if the true Notion of a Church doth agree to it then upon the same reason that we own particular Churches and the Catholick Church we are to own a National Church so that the design of that discourse was not barely to prove the possibility of the thing but the truth and reality of it But saith he Can it be proved
that Christ hath invested the Guides of this Church not chosen by the People with a Power to make Laws and Decrees prescribing not onely things necessary for common order and decency but new federal rites and teaching signs and symbols superadded to the whole Christian Institution c. I answer that such a Church hath Power to appoint Rules of Order and Decency not repugnant to the word of God which on that account others are bound to submit to and to take such care of its preservation as to admit none to its privileges but such as do submit to them and if any disturb the Peace of this Church the Civil Magistrate may justly inflict civil Penalties upon them for it All which is no more than any settled Church in the world asserts as well as ours And I wonder this should be so continually objected against our Church which all Societies in the world think just and necessary for their own preservation As to the Guides of the Church not being chosen by the People I shall speak to that afterwards One objection more he makes which the others did not viz. I had said that by whole or National Churches I understood the Churches of such Nations which upon decay of the Roman Empire resumed their just right of Governing themselves and upon their owning Christianity incorporated into one Christian Society under the same common ties and Rules of Order and Government Such Churches I say have a just right of Reforming themselves and therefore are not liable to the imputation of Schism from the Roman Church Would one think what unlucky Inferences he draws from hence 1. Then all that remain within the Empire were bound to continue in the Communion of the Roman Church What if I should deny the continuance of the Roman Empire then all would be safe But do I any where say that being in the Empire they were bound to submit to the Roman Church No but as the Nation resumed its just civil Rights the Church might as rightfully recover it self from Papal Vsurpations not laying the force of one upon the other but paralleling them together and the advantage of the argument is on the Churches side 2. Then where Princes have not resumed their just rights as to Reformation they are Schismaticks that separate from Rome That doth not follow for in the cases before mentioned separation is lawfull but no Reformation is so unexceptionable as when there is a Concurrence of the Civil Power My last Adversary doth not deny a National Church from consent in the same Articles of Religion and Rules of Government and Order of Worship but then he saith such ought to be agreeable to the established Rule of Holy Scriptures And therein we are all agreed So that after much tugging this point is thought fit to be given up Sect. 24. The next thing to be considered is the interest and Power of the People as to the choice of their Pastours for want of which great complaints are made by my Adversaries as a thing injurious to them and prejudicial to the Church and that we therein go contrary to all Antiquity Dr. O. puts the depriving the People of their liberty of choosing their Pastours among the Causes of Separation Mr. Baxter is very Tragical upon this argument and keeps not within tolerable bounds of discretion in pleading the People's Cause against Magistrates and Patrons and Laws and he tells me I go against all the ancient Fathers and Churches for many hundred years and am so far a Separatist from more than one Parish Priest and therefore my charge of them is schismatical and unjust and recoileth on my self who instead of God's Rule accuse them that walk not by our novel crooked Rules which may make as many modish Religions as there are Princes When I first read such passages as these I wonder'd what I had said that might give occasion to so much undecent Passion as every where almost discovers it self in his Answer and the more I consider'd the more I wonder'd but at last I resolved as Mr. A. doth about the Assembly that Mr. B. is but a man as other men are and for all that I see of equal passions and that upon little or no provocation For I had not said one word upon this Argument What then would Mr. B. seek a Cause to express his anger against me as if I had allowed Princes to set up what Religions they please Surely he thought himself writing against Hobbs and Spinosa then No but thus he artificially draws me into this snare I spake much against Separation How then They would never have separated if they had not been silenced therefore my being against their separation shews I am for their silencing As though these necessarily followed each other What is this to Princes imposing what Religion they please Thus Then Magistrates by their Laws may put out Nonconformists and put in Conformists But have we not the same Religion still But saith Mr. Baxter these must be my supposed Grounds that Magistrates may appoint what Religion they please and those are Separatists who do not obey them Is not this admirable ingenuity to rail upon a man for suppositions of his own making However Mr. Baxter will have it so let me say what I will The People's part he will take and let me take that of the Magistrates and Laws if I think good and since they are fallen to my lot I will defend them as well as I can as to this matter Mr. B. appearing very warm in this business what doth Mr. A. coming after him but make it the very first and fundamental Ground of their Separation viz. That every particular Church upon a due ballance of all circumstances has an inherent right to choose its own Pastour and every particular Christian the same Power to chuse his own Church Nay then I thought we were in a very fair way of settlement when the Anabaptists in Germany never broached a looser principle than this nor more contrary to the very possibility of having an established Church for it leads to all manner of Schisms and Factions in spight of all Laws and Authority in Church or State The Authour of the Letter goes upon the same principle too and saith The Guides of the Church are to be chosen by the People according to Scripture and Primitive practice This I perceive is a popular argument and a fine device to draw in the common People to the dissenting Party whatever becomes of Laws and mens just and legal Rights of Patronage all must yield to the antecedent Right of the People But to bring this matter to a strict debate we must consider these three things 1. What Original or inherent Right and Power the People had 2. How they came to be devested of it 3. Whether there be sufficient ground to resume it And from thence we shall understand whether some of the People's consenting to hear the Nonconformists
preach notwithstanding the Laws can excuse them from Separation for this lies at the bottom of all 1. As to the Original inherent Right and Power of the People Dr. O. supposeth all Church-Power to be originally in the People for to manifest how favourable wise men have been to the Congregational way he quotes a saying of F. Paul out of a Book of his lately translated into English that in the beginning the Government of the Church had altogether a Democratical Form which is an opinion so absurd and unreasonable that I could not easily believe such a saying to have come from so learned and judicious a Person For was there not a Church to be formed in the beginning Did not Christ appoint Apostles and give them Commission and Authority for that end Where was the Church power then lodged Was it not in the Apostles Did not they in all places as they planted Churches appoint Officers to teach and govern them And did they not give them Authority to doe what they had appointed Were not then the several Pastours and Teachers invested with a Power superiour to that of the People and independent upon them And if they had such Power and Authority over the People how came their Power to be derived from them as it must be if the Church Government then were Democratical Besides Is it reasonable to suppose the People should assemble to choose their Officers and convey the Power of the Keys to them which never were in their hands And how could they make choice of men for their fitness and abilities when their abilities depended so much on the Apostles laying on of their hands For then the Holy Ghost was given unto them But in all the Churches planted by the Apostles in all the directions given about the choice of Bishops and Deacons no more is required as to the People than barely their Testimony therefore it is said they must be blameless and men of good report But where is it said or intimated that the Congregation being the first subject of the Power of the Keys must meet together and choose their Pastour and then convey the Ministerial Power over themselves to them If it were true that the Church Government at first was Democratical the Apostles have done the People a mighty injury for they have said no more of their Power in the Church than they have done of the Pope's It is true the Brethren were present at the nomination of a new Apostle but were not the Women so too And is the Power of the Keys in their hands too Suppose not doth this prove that the Churches Power was then Democratical then the People made an Apostle and gave him his Power which I do not think any man would say much less F. Paul As to the election of Deacons it was no properly Church Power which they had but they were Stewards of the common Stock and was there not then all the reason in the world the Community should be satisfied in the choice of the men When Saint Peter received Cornelius to the Faith he gave an account of it to all the Church And what then Must he therefore derive his power from it Do not Princes and Governours give an account of their proceedings for the satisfaction of their Subjects minds But here is not all the Church mentioned onely those of the Circumcision at Ierusalem had a mind to understand the reason of his receiving a Gentile Convert And what is this to the power of the Church But in the Council of Jerusalem the People did intervene and the Letters were written in the names of all the three Orders Apostles Priests and faithfull Brethren I grant it but is it not expresly said that the Question was sent up from the Churches to the Apostles and Presbyters Is it not said that the Apostles and Presbyters met to debate it and that the multitude was silent Is it not said that the Decrees were passed by the Apostles and Presbyters without any mention of the People And here was the proper occasion to have declared their Power but in the other place it signifies no more than their general consent to the Decrees that were then made In success of time it is added when the Church increased in number the faithfull retiring themselves to the affairs of their Families and having left those of the Congregation the Government was retained onely in the Ministers and so became Aristocratical saving the election which was Popular Which account is neither agreeable to Reason nor to Antiquity For was not the Government of the Church Aristocratical in the Apostles times How came it to be changed from that to a Democratical Form Did not the Apostles appoint Rulers in the several Churches and charged the People to obey them And was this an argument the Power was then in the People It was not then the People's withdrawing of which there can be no evidence if there be so much evidence still left for the People's Power in Antiquity but the Constitution of the Church was Aristocratical by the appointment of the Apostles Sect. 25. We therefore come now to consider the Popular Elections as to which there is so fair a pretence from Antiquity but yet not such as to fix any inherent or unalterable Right in the People As I shall make appear by these following observations 1. That the main ground of the People's Interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon That a Bishop must be blameless and of good report 2. That the People upon this assuming the Power of Elections caused great disturbances and disorders in the Church 3. That to prevent these many Bishops were appointed without their choice and Canons made for the better regulating of them 4. That when there were Christian Magistrates they did interpose as they thought fit notwithstanding the popular claim in a matter of so great consequence to the Peace of Church and State 5. That upon the alteration of the Government of Christendom the Interest of the People was secured by their consent in Parlaments and that by such consent the Nomination of Bishops was reserved to Princes and the Patronage of Livings to particular Persons 6. That things being thus settled by established Laws there is no reasonable Ground for the Peoples resuming the Power of electing their own Bishops and Ministers in opposition to these Laws If I can make good these Observations I shall give a full answer to all the Questions propounded concerning the Right and Power of the People which my Adversaries build so much upon 1. That the main ground of the Peoples interest was founded upon the Apostles Canon that a Bishop must be blameless and of good report For so the Greek Scholiast argues from that place in Timothy If a Bishop ought to have a good report of them that are without 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 How much rather of the Brethren 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith
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
but on a constant Tradition among them which they derive from the days of Solomon who they say appointed it first when they did eat of Sacrifices afterwards the wise men applied it to the Terumah and at last Hillel and Schammai decreed it ought to be observed for their greater purification before the eating their common Meals And the Pharisees placing the greatest part of their Religion in the nice observance of such Traditions thought themselves so much more holy than others as they did more carefully avoid the defilements of common Conversation and for that reason they observed this washing especially when they had been in promiscuous company For they thought themselves defiled by any touch from the ordinary sort of People and this Maimonides saith They looked on as a peculiar part of Sanctity and the more strict and punctual they were in this the more holy they were accounted Therefore in the Talmud one Iohn the Son of Gudged is particularly admired for his Sanctity because he exceeded others in the niceness of washing his hands And they have a saying in the Misna to this purpose The Garments of the common People are a pollution to the Pharisees the Garments of the Pharisees to those that eat the Terumah and theirs to those that eat of the Sacrifices and theirs to those that touched the water of cleansing So that they had different degrees of Sanctity about this matter of washing none of which was imposed for the sake of cleanliness but from the supposition of some inward purification they obtained by it from the common filthiness of the world And upon this principle even the vessels of the Temple were to be washed all over if they were but touched by the common People In the washing their hands they put a difference between that before and that after meat the latter they accounted a matter of liberty or at least onely for health to wash off the dangerous saline particles which they supposed to remain but the former was required for inward purification which they require so strictly that if water may be had within four miles a Iew is bound not to eat till he hath washed no not with a fork and in case none can be had then he is to cover his hands and so eat nor can he take meat from another in his mouth untill his mouth be first washed If there be no more water than will serve for his drink he must part with enough of it to wash his hands and therefore R. Akiba in prison said He would rather perish with thirst than want water to wash his hands And they say Whosoever disesteems this Custom deserves not onely excommunication but death too Since all this is evident from the most authentick Writers among the Iews I cannot but admire at Mr. A.'s design who would make the world believe that this was no more than an indifferent Ceremony among the Iews that was onely required for Order and Decency as our Ceremonies are when those very citations he brings from Buxtorf and Dr. Lightfoot do manifestly prove the contrary This I thought necessary to be cleared because this is the chief place in the New Testament which they bring to prove the unlawfulness of our Ceremonies From hence it now appears that the reason of Christ's condemning that Ceremony of washing of hands was not upon the account of Decency but a superstitious Opinion they had concerning it that it did expiate a lesser kind of guilt and spiritual filthiness which they contracted by the impure touches of men less holy than themselves And this the Pharisees more wondred at in Christ's Disciples because it was a Rule among them that the Disciples of the Wise ought to be more strict in these cases than others because these things tended to advance the reputation of their holiness among the People And where such an opinion prevails there such Ceremonies are made parts of Divine Worship Sect. 28. And thus it is in many of the Ceremonies of the Roman Church which their Divines assert to have a purifying and cleansing faculty as to the Souls of men not for justification of men from mortal sins but for other spiritual effects and taking away the guilt of venial sins For say they no doubt they are effectual for the ends to which the Church appointed them and of this there is no dispute among Catholicks And withall they add That it is probable that the Church hath power to appoint Ceremonies in such a manner that they may produce these effects ex opere operato as the Sacraments do justification because Christ hath left it in the power of the Church to apply his merits for lesser effects having appointed the Sacraments himself for the greater But Bellarmin thinks this latter part disputable concerning the opus operatum of Ceremonies but as to the former viz. by way of impetration he saith it is past all doubt among Catholicks So as to the sprinkling of Holy Water Bellarmin saith it is no meer significant Ceremony but it is effectual for the blotting out of venial sins and he quotes Saint Thomas and Dom. à Soto and Gratian for it who produceth the Canon of Alex. 1. whereby it appears it was first instituted ut eâ cuncti aspersi sanctificentur purificentur that all that were sprinkled might be sanctified and purified by it In the prayer of Consecration for the Salt to make holy Water one expression is that it might be wholsome both to Body and Soul and the Water is consecrated to drive away the power of the Devil Azorius saith that holy Water cleanseth venial sins ex opere operato and drives away Devils Greg. de Valentia agrees in the thing but is not so peremptory in the manner But Marsilius Columna hath written a whole Book of the admirable effects of this Ceremony And so for the sign of the Cross Bellarmin attributes wonderfull effects to it for driving away Devils and Diseases and sanctifying the things it is applied to and he saith it hath power against the Devil ex opere operato Pet. Thyraeus the Iesuit attributes a proper efficiency to the sign of the Cross against the power of the Devil Coccius saith it is a terrour to the Devils and very beneficial to mankind Which makes me wonder at Dr. Ames his disingenuity when he would go about to make the Doctrine of our Church about Ceremonies not to differ from that of the Church of Rome It is true Cassander and some few others talk at another rate and Cassander himself saith the best men on both sides were agreed about these matters But we are not to take their general sense from such as Cassander especially when their publick Offices speak the sense of their Church better than Cassander Greg. de Valentiâ indeed saith it is a lie that they attribute as much to Ceremonies as to Sacraments and in truth they do it not for they
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