would have all walk by he will not do it but instead of that with unusual gentleness tells me he will not differ about it if I do but grant that it is a Rule that binds us all to do all that lawfully we can for peace which I cheerfully grant And if it be not lawful for peace and concord to forbear silencing us imprisoning us accusing us as odious for not wilful sinning and urging Magistrates to execute the Laws against us and making us seem Schismaticks for not forbearing to Preach the Gospel to which we were vowed and consecrated by Ordination I know not lawful from unlawful I cannot yet get him to tell us what he would have the many score thousands do on the Lords Days that have no room in the Parish-Churches with many such which our case is concerned in § 14. I thought his Book had been an Answer to mine and other mens Prefaces but I find that I was mistaken Indeed he nameth five Books written against his Accusation what he saith to Dr. Owen and Mr. Alsop I leave to themselves to consider of The Countrey Gentlemans Case in sense was this Whether all they that think Parish Communion under the present impositions to be sin are bound till they can change their judgment to forbear all Church-worship and live like Atheists and so be damned And who can find any Answer to this Mr. Barret's Queries out of his Books he saith next nothing to but a dark retracting his Irenicon And far be it from me to blame him for growing wiser But why took he no notice of his own words cited in the Epistle out of his late Book against Idolatry threatning us all with no less than damnation if me prefer not the purest Church And as to my Defence his Book is nothing like an Answer unless his naming me and citing out of that and other Books a few broken scraps which he thought he could make some advantage of may be called an Answer § 15. I confess he hath made some attempt to tell me what the National Church of England is but so Independently as I doubt his party will disown it with great offence In short he holds that there is no such thing as a Church of England in the usual Political sense having any Constitutive Ecclesiastical Supreme Power Monarchical or Aristocratical or Democratical but it 's only the many Churches in England associated by the common consent in Parliament c. Remember that he and I are so far agreed As I was writing this I saw a Book against him of a friend too much for me and somewhat freely handling the Dr. which in this point would help them by saying that the Convocation having the Legislative Church-Power may be the Constitutive Regent part But he confesseth to me that he spake not what is but what he counts should be or wisheth for the Dr. himself had before told us that the Convocations of Canterbury and York are two and not united to make one National supreme power so that this proveth no one political Church of England at all but only 2 Provincial Churches in England § 16. The Dr. hath so judiciously and honestly pleaded our Cause in his defence of A. Bishop Laud and his Book against Idolatry that I have made his words the first Chap. of this Book which if he candidly stand to I see not but our principles are the same § 17. His book is made up of 3 parts I. Untrue Accusations II. Untrue Historical Citations abundance III. Fallacious Reasonings Would you have an undeniable Confutation ad hominem in few words I. As to his Principles he saith himself as aforesaid Of Idolat p. 7. We are sure that wilful ignorance or choosing a worse Church before a better is a damnable sin II. As to his History of the old Nonconformists read A. Bishop Bancrofts dangerous Positions and Heylins History of Presbytery charging them odiously with the clean contrary and the Canons made against them on that supposition III. As to his History and Doctrine against the Election of Bp s which I pleaded as I have fully proved his abuse of History in it I repeat Mr. Thorndikes words Forbear of Penalty It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation of the Churchtoregular Government without restoring the liberty of choosing Bishops and priviledg of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and people in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it O pray hard to God to provide greater store of skilful holy and peaceable Labourers for his Harvest that by the sound belief of a better world have overcome the deluding love of the honours prosperity and pleasures of the flesh and wholly live to God and Heaven POSTSCRIPT DR Edward Stillingfleet Irenic P. 114. saith The Episcopal men will hardly find any evidence in Scripture or in the practice of the Apostles for Churches consisting of many fixed Congregations for worship under the charge of one Pastor nor in the Primitive Church for the Ordination of a Bishop without the preceding Election of the Clergy and at least consent and approbation of the people and neither in Scripture nor Antiquity the least foot-step of the delegation of Church-power so that upon the matter all of them at last make use of those things in Church-Government which have no other foundation but the principles of humane prudence guided by Scripture and it were well if that were observed still P. 370. Surely then their Diocesses we re not very large if all the several Parishes could communicate on the same day with what was sent from the Cathedral Church P. 361. I doubt not but to make it appear that Philippi was not the Metropolis of Macedonia and therefore the Bishops there mentioned could not be the Bishops of the several Cities under the jurisdiction of Philippi but must be understood of the Bishops resident in that City P. 157. There must be a form of Ecclesiastical Government over a Nation as a Church as well as of Civil Government over it as a Society governed by the same Laws For every Society must have its Government belonging to it as such a Society And the same reason that makes Government necessary in any particular Congregation will make it necessary for all the particular Congregations joyning together in one visible Society as a particular National Church For the Unity and Peace of that Church ought much more to be lookt after than of any one Congregation P. 131. The Churches power as to Divine Law being only directive and declarative but as confirmed by a Civil Sanction is juridical and obligatory P. 113. Where any Church is guilty of corruptions both in Doctrine and in practice which it avoweth and professeth and requireth the owning them as necessary conditions of Communion with her there a Noncommunion with that Church is necessary and a
far from being Schism that being cast our 〈◊〉 that Church on those terms only returns them to the Communion of the Catholick Church On which grounds it will appear that yours 〈◊〉 the Schismatical Church and not ours For although before this imposing humor came into particular Churches Schism was defined by the Fathers and others to be a voluntary departure out of the Church yet that cannot in reason be understood of any particular but the true Catholick Church For not only persons but Churches may depart from the Catholick Church And in such Cases not those who depart from the Communion of such Churches but those Churches which departed from the Catholick are guilty of Schism These things I thought necessary to be further explained not only to shew how false that imputation is of our Churches departing from the true Catholick Church but with what great reason we charge your Church with departing from the communion of it and therefore not those whom you thrust out of Communion but your Church so thrusting them out is apparently guilty of the present Schism Page 366. The truth is such pretences as these are are fit only for a Church that hateth to be reformed for if something not good in it self should happen in any one Age to overspread the visible Communion of all particular Churches this only makes a Reformation more necessary so far is it from making it more disputable For thereby those corruptions grow more dangerous and every particular Church is bound the more to regard its own security in a time of general infection And if any other Churches neglect themselves what reason is it that the rest should For any or all other particular Churches neglecting their duty is no more an Argument that no particular Church should reform it self than that if all other men in a Town neglect preserving themselves from the Plague then I am bound to neglect it too Page 540. Every Church is bound to regard her own purity and peace and in case of Corruptions to proceed to a Reformation of them Page 541. Saint Augustine saith not only in that place but in very many others that Saint Peter did sustain the Person of the Church when Christ said to him I will give thee the Keyes of the Kingdom of Heaven That he did universam significare Ecclesiam signifie the whole Church and that those things which are spoken of Peter non habent illustrem intellectum nisi eum referuntur ad Ecclesiam cujus ille agnoscitur in figurâ gestasse personam have no clear sense but â—hen they are referred to the Church whose person he did 〈◊〉 Pag. 542 He means the formal right of them was conveyed to the Church and that Saint Peter was only a publick person to receive them in the name of the Church It primarily and formally resides in the whole body of the Church Pag. 544. His Lordship saith your opinion is yet more unreasonable because no body collective whensoever it assembled it self did ever give more powerto the representing body of it than a binding power upon it self and all particulars nor ever did it give this power otherwise than with this reservation in nature that it would call again and reform and if need were abrogate any law or ordinance upon just cause made evident that the representing body had failed in trust or truth And this power no body collective Ecclesiastical or Civil can put out of it self or give away to a Parliament or Council or call it what you will that represents it His Lordship saith that the power which a Council hath to order settle and define differences arising concerning faith it hath not by an immediate institution from Christ but it was prudently taken up by the Church from the Apostles example CHAP. II. Some Animadversions on his Preface § 1. THE impartial searchers after truth have hitherto thought that a strict method at least agreeable to natural Logick is more effectual than confusion or wordy popular haranges And that the controversie should be very cleerly stated before it can be profitably argued And therefore that first all ambiguity of terms be by due explication removed that men may not mean several things and not understand each other and to Define and distinguish where it is needful and then Affirm or deny and then effectualy prove But why this worthy person doth far otherwise with us both before and now it is more his part than mine to give the reason I dare not say he cannot Nor I dare not say he can but will not but all that I can say is that he doth not and I know not why § 2. The Preface of his Book called Unreasonableness c. Is so much answered already by Mr. Lob that I will not lose time by doing much to the same again And there is a posthumous book of Dr. Worsleys called The third part of naked Truth which hath strenuously handled the same chief matter for Scripture Sufficiency against unnecessary Impositions It being supposed though not there expressed 1. That he speaketh not against the guiding determination of undetermined accidents which must be determined one way or other As Time Place Utensils Translationwords Metres tunes c. 2. And that a man that intollerably breakes Gods Laws by Blasphemy Treason Murder Fornication c. is not to be tollerated because he erroniously thinks he keepeth them § 3. His sad saying that there is no improbability that the Jesuites should be the first setters up of the way in England which he calls the Doctrine of Spiritual Prayer Mr. Lob hath opened as it deserveth in part but to say all that it deserveth would seem so harsh that I have reason to think that it would but more offend than profit him § 4. For I find that he is grown too impatient with our Nameing what he patiently and confidently doth The cause of his impatience I leave to himself But that it is much within him I must conjecture when in his defence of Bishop Laud I read him saying to the Papists To speak mildly it is a gross untruth And yet wen I speak not so plainly to him and I think never more sharply he accounts it a continued Passion Rage Railing Intollerable indiscretion c. Do I give him harder words than these Yet I profess I smart not by them I take them for very tollerable words in comparison of his miscarriges in the cause in hand Several sorts of men I have found think other men speak in passion 1. Those that hear and read with passion They think that which angers them came from anger 2. Those that are too high to be dealt with on even terms and think the plain speech which agreeth to others is a contempt of such as them 3. Those that commit miscarriages so gross and defend causes so bad as have no names but what are disgraceful and then take all that is said to anatomatize their cause and errours to be said against themselves
while you deny not that half or a quarter of your own Parish cannot hear you much less many greater Parishes that if some of them do but sometimes crowd in perhaps once in many months or weeks by coming with the first and do but dwell in the Parish and own you that they have no need to hear or worship God publickly all the rest of the year and to pretend such need becometh not Sincerity 2. And as to those that meet in lesser Parishes you thought not meet to take notice of my answer assigning many Reasons which I will not repeat any further than to tell you 1. That many Churches there are unbuilt 2. Many come from the greater Parishes to them and some have other Reasons Sect. 15. P. 102. He saith Mr. Baxter hath a whole Chapter Plea p. 141. of Reasons against the Communion of Laymen with our Church Answ You are unhappy in History though it be your strength There 's not a word to prove it unlawful for Laymen to have Communion with your Churches but only the Matter of Fact named which is supposed to the Controversie But it being cunningly worded by you it may be by Reasons against Communion with our Churches you meant but as I did Reasons for Nonconformity in those particular Acts But do you not your self all-along suppose and plead that though we conform not yet we should hold Communion with you Why call you then the Reasons of Nonconformity Reasons against Communion Sect. 16. P. 103. He adds in the same Books he saith it is Schismatical in a Church to deny Baptism without the transient Sign of the Cross or for want of God-fathers c. or to deny Communion to such who scruple kneeling Now if the Church be Schismatical then those who seperate in these things are not Answ 1. Say you so Then we are not only quit but further quit than we can own our selves I undertake to prove that it may be Schism to separate from a Church that is guilty of some Schismatical Acts and Impositions And it needs no proof but the plain History and their Accusations of one another that there are few if any Churches on Earth that are not guilty of somewhat that is Schismatical in East VVest North or South in Africk Asia Europe or America Greeks Muscovites Jacobites Abassines Nestorians Armenians Georgians Mengrelians Circassians Papists Lutherans Calvinists Prelaticalls Presbyterians Independants Anabaptists c. And must we separate from them all 2. Verily Sir denying Persons Christendom and Church-Communion are great things And if a Cross and a gesture forbidden by the Ancient Councils in Adoration every Lords Day be now matters so weighty as for them to deny Christendome and Communion for shame call them Indifferent no more one would verily think that when you writ your Defence of Archbishop Laâ—d you had been of another mind if words are any notifying Signs of your mind 3. Other Pastors may be used in such instances without separating from you Sir these are not impossibilities to peaceable men In both the places where I formerly preached a publick Minister and a private lovingly joyn as assistants one doing that part which the other cannot And they all live in peace Sect. 17. I am next assaulted Pag. 110. I say The Benefit of Christian Love and Concord may make it best for certain seasons to joyn even in defective Modes of Worship as Christ did c. though the least defective must be chosen when no such Reasons sway the other way Reader is not this true Will not the denyal of this drive us from the Parish Churches and from almost all or require us causelesly to choose sins of omission Would you not take him for a separatist that is against this But he saith And hence we take notice 1. That no Obligation to the Peace and Unity of this Church as they are Members of it doth bring them to this occasional Communion with it but a certain Romantick Fancy of Catholick Unity by which these Catholick Gentlemen think themselves no more obliged to the Communion of this Church then of the Armâ—nian or Abissine Churches Only it happens that our Church is so much nearer Answ 1. This is not true For 1. we take this Church to be far less corrupt than the Armenian or Abissine 2. We have more Obligations to it from the civil Magistrates Laws and Protection c. 2. Is nearness such a trifle with you How much do you differ from Mr. Cheny Tell us why we should be of your Parish Church rather than of one an hundred miles off but for nearness and Cohabitation why else of old had each City its own Church 3. Is Catholick Unity become a Romantick Fancy Is this the same man that wrote the Defence of Archbishop Laud we are not ashamed of the title of Catholick 4. If I name one Obligation to Communion with you is it a learned Note to gather that I deny all other 5. When prove you that I am only for occasional Communion when I have so long practised constant Communion with you These are reasons suitable to your cause Sect. 18. He adds Ask him what Church he is a Member of If he answer he could have occasional Communion with all tolerable Churches but was a fixed Member of none would they if he were at Jerusalem take such a man for a Christian What a Christian and a Member of no Church And I much doubt whether they would admit such an one to occasional Communion c. Answ 1. Wonderful Who would have thought that this man had been so much for the Principles of Separation more than the Independants In his defence of Laud he maintaineth that the Power of the Keys is formally in the whole Church and given to Peter as their Representative which is not true for it was given only to Pastors as such and not to the Laity And now he would make that man no Christian that is no fixed Member of some particular Church Let us examine whether this be true CHAP. VI. Q. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church Sect. 1. HE that is a true Member of the Universal Church which is Christs Body is a true Christian But many are Members of the Universal Church which are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 2. All that are rightfully Baptized are Christians for it is their Christening But many rightfully Baptized are no fixed Members of any particular Church Ergo. 3. He that hath all the Essentials of Christianity is a Christian But many that are no fixed Members of a particular Church have all the Essentials of Christianity Ergo. 4. A fortiore They that are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church though Baptised are not unchristened for want of such Membership But many Baptized person are not so much as bound in Duty to be fixed Members of a particular Church Ergo. Instances
is it his own â—…act or is he therefore not obliged by it Had it not been requisite that you should have justified all that we stick at as unlawful before you charge us with crossing this Rule Sect. 56. p. 204 c. My words in many Books against Schism are cited and praised Reader he tells men the measure of their Charity and Church Communion viz. That men that do as much as I do that forbore so long Sacramental Administration that gathered no Church that held constant Communion with divers Parish Churches that have wrote so much and earnestly against Schism shall yet be ejected silenced pay 40 â— a Sermon and lie in Jails unless I will do more While Bishop Lauds design for widening the Church doors to the Papists is magnified by Heylin and others as a good work Sect. 13. First he finds but two justifiable Causes of Separation but p. 213 214. he hath found three and no more 1. Idolatrous Worship 2. False Doctrine imposed instead of true 3. Making and imposing things indifferent as necessary to Salvation Ans 1. Readers do you remember how even now he exposed to odium the peoples judging whether the Pastors be Hereticks And now they may separate for false Doctrine 2. I intreat him to think again of these Cases following 1. What if the Worship be not Idolatrous but Blasphemous or utterly Ridiculous tending to contempt of God 2. What if it be in an unknown Tongue 3. What if the Church have no true Minister I am glad you are not for separating for want of Episcopacy or Episcopal Ordination 4. What if the Church want half the Church-Worship as to have Preaching and Prayer without Sacraments or Sacraments without Preaching or Prayer or Preaching without Prayer c. 5. What if the Church be but schismatical Have you written all this Book to draw men to you from the Independant Churches and do you now tell us that the people may not separate from them on the account of Schism 6. What if a Church require me to tell or subscribe to one known Lie or to say that I believe what I do not or to justifie thousands that I think obliged by a Vow if they break it What if they impose any one sin on me without which they will not receive me to Communion 7. What if I remove for my Edification from a drunkess ignorant Priest to the Church of a wise and holy Pastor 8. Are we looser than Pope Nicholas that forbad men to hear Mass from a Fornicating Pricst 9. I would you had spoken to Edification and told men what false Doctrine it is that will allow Separation and whether it 's false Doctrine preached or only imposed on the person to be owned If the former is it all false Doctrine or but some and what Verily if all you are tenfold more a Seperatist than I For I look to hear sometimes some words of false Doctrine in most Pulpits even of Conformists If it must be heresie it self I will not separate for once hearing it if the Church profess it not If it be imposed Error that you mean take heed lest you justifie Separation from your Church by the new Article of Infants certain Salvation And when both Arminians and Anti-Arminians subscribe the 39 Articles tell us whether those Articles are true in both their senses or whether the sence be not the thing subscribed or whether one half of them should separate You are too unmerciful to your self but what kind of Churches should there be upon your terms I find no more in his second part which I am much concerned in CHAP. VII The Reply to his Third Part The beginning Sect. 1. IN his third Part I first find my self accused p. 242 c. And that is not only by insisting on a false accusation of my words but adding a confutation of himself as if he discerned not that he did it In Treat of Concord I say If it holdeth that God instituted only Congregational or Parochial Churches as for present Communion then none of the rest instituted by man may deprive them of their priviledges granted by Christ I put it but with an If it be so because I told them my own doubt of it After I say To devise new species of Churches without Gods Authority and impose them on the World yea in his name and call all Dissenters Schismaticks is worse Usurpation than to make and impose new Ceremonies and Liturgies And can any Christian deny either of these But he saith This supposeth Congregational Churches to be so much the institution of Christ that any constitution above these is unlawful and unsupportable which is more than the Independant Brethren do assert And is any word of all this true 1. The Independants much insist on this I refer him now but to Amesii Medul de Eccl. Minist 2. Do the words suppose that which is plainly excepted in them If it were granted 1. That the Congregational only are so instituted 2. And that others are not set over them by God 3. And yet are obtruded in his name without his authority 4. And all Dissenters called Schismaticks then I say they are unlawful 5. To coufute himself plainly he confesseth that I say The question is not whether the Archbishops should be over the particular Churches as Successors to the Apostolical and General Overseers of the first Age in the ordinary continued parts of their Office Nor whether Patriarks Diocesans Lay-Chancellors as Officers of the King exercising Magistracy be lawful And yet he saith that I suppose the contrary He next pretends to give my Reasons And the chief is because it overthroweth the species of Gods making when I only say That which overthroweth it is unlawful which is not the Archbishops that are over the lower Bishops but those that put them all down and governed the Carkasses of the mortified particular Churches as the lowest Bishops of many score or hundred such as themselves And he saith I am for the full exercise of Discipline within the particular Church while he confest I spake not against Archbishops And yet he saith This is a fair representation of my opinion Sect. 2. Coming to prove our Episcopacy the same with the Primitive he pretendeth to confute me That which I asserted was 1. That by the first Institution and Constitution every Church no bigger for number of Souls than one of our great Parishes had a Bishop of their own one or more I disputed not 2. Yea that for the first two hundred years if not more no one Bishop had a Church so big as some of our Parishes at least except Alexandria and Rome and even of them it is not certain that they had more Souls 3. That after by degrees the case was altered But yet after there were many Meetings like Chappels a while there was but one Altar 4. After that those Chappels had Altars but so as that at certain times of the year the people of the Cities
Vicarious or deputed supreme Monarchical Aristocratical or Democratical 2. Accordingly they noted the difference of two sorts of Papists some that set the Pope as superior above Councils others as the Councils of Constance and Basil and the French that make the General Council supreme the Pope being President as the chief of the Patriarchs and having many priviledges as Primate to the Universal Church 3. But that in truth the Catholick governing power of Pope and the other four Patriarchs was but a humane form of Church Policy setled in one Empire as a National kind of Church and the Councils were Universal as to the Empire but not to all the Christian world which I have proved against W. Johnson fully called by the Emperour that had no power over other Nations and subscribed by his subjects 4. That the grand cheat that hath set up Popery is the turning this National Church into an Universal Government of all the Christian world and pretending that Christ or his Apostles set up that power over all which Emperours and Imperial Councils set up only over one Empire 5. We are sworn against Forreign Jurisdiction by the Oath of Supremacy For the Roman Empire is dissolved and if it were not we are no subjects of it 6. Yet we hold that all Christians should live in all possible love and concord counselling and helping one another for the edification of the Church and that such Councils are useful thereto as may be had without more hurt than good But that no Universal governing power besides Christs for Legislation Judgment or Execution is needful to that concord nor is a Government of the whole Christian world by any one Political supreme Pope or Council or Colledg of Pastors or Cardinals any more possible or lawful to be sought than that all the Kingdoms on earth have one humane civil Soveraign though all Kings as well as all Bishops are bound to serve God with the greatest concord that they can attain But now he that will read many late Divines of England will find that they are come to this 1. To take the foresaid Conciliar and French Papists to be no Papists and so to make it a controversie de nomine in which for me let them have their liberty 2 To take it for a necessary thing to believe that the Universal Church in the world hath one supreme governing power under Christ and is a Society that is therein visibly one And 3. That this one ruling power is either a General Council or the Colledg of all Bishops on earth 4. And that the Imperial Church-form was and is to be the true Universal Church form viz. a General Council where the five Patriarchs are by themselves or by consent 5. And that the Pope is President and Principium unitatis and chief Patriarch and so to be obeyed by us 6. And that there is no true way to Universal concord but by being of this one Church so formed and obeying its Universal Laws which they say christ hath given them power to make 7. And that they are Schismaticks and not to be tolerated that do not so consent and obey 8. Yea say some to us in England it is compelled obedience to all the present Impositions which only must cure our divisions without abatement for Union or any Tolerations A great deal more of this nature is built on this principle that the Church in all the earth is one as under one humane supreme Government under Christ and that all are Schismaticks that are not of it and obey it not I am not for disgracing any by the name of Papists that refuse it whether the French and the councils of Pisa Constance and Basil shall be called Papists I contend not But whether those false principles be the only terms of concord wise men will cautelously consider ADVERTISEMENT THere is lately Published a Book of the same Authors called A Search for the English schismatick by the Case and Characters 1. Of the Diocesan Canoneers 2. Of the Present Meer Nonconformists Not as an Accusation of the former but a necessary Defence of the latter so far as they are wrongfully accused and persecuted by them And is to be sold by Nevill Simmons at the Sign of the Three Golden Cocks at the West-end of St. Pauls THE CONTENTS AN Historical Preface Dr. Stillingfleet's judgment as in his Irenicon A Premised explication of the equivocal word Church What the Catholick Church is in our judgment and what in the judgment of many of our silencers Chap. 1. Dr. Stillingfleet's large and plain Asserting of our principles in his Defence of Archbishop Laud and Rom. Idolatry p. 1. Chap. 2. Some Animadversions on his Preface Whether the Jesuits first brought in Spiritual Prayer A full explication of our judgment about Spiritual Prayer His hard terms against mens high or low chusing Tutors for their Children p. 11. Chap. 3. Dr. Stillingfleet his Accusations examined His confusion disputing a question not stated What he means by Our Church by Communion by Constant by Withdrawing by Separate Congregations what Separation I am for or against Whether he say true that my Tremendous aggravations of the sin of Conforming were written without the least provocation on their part or that as designed to represent the Clergy as notorious Lying perjured Villains p. 22. c. Chap. 4. His false History of the old Nonconformists as if Bancroft's Danger Posit Heylin and all such old accusers utterly belyed them and the Canons made against them had a false supposition his citations examined More proof of his falsification The difference between the Nonconformists and the Brownists How we are used by them The Reformatio Legum Eccles how much for discipline I now add my request to the Reader that would know how far the first Reformers were of the Nonconformists mind and against our new Church-men that they would but read Cranmers and the other Drs. words cited by Dr. Stillingfleet in the end of his Irenicon and left out of Dr. Burnet's History and Bucer's Scripta Anglicana De Regno Del his Censura of the Liturgy de cura Anim. c. The story of Dr. Ames Paul Bayne Dr. Fulk c. Dr. Humphrey's Letter to the Bishops p. 55 56 57. Chap. 5. The false Reasonings and accusations of his second part p. 59. My judgment and case stated which he falsly reporteth Others Cases considered Whether it be true That there is no other reason against Communion than was at the first Reformation Difference proved 1. From the things imposed 2. From the design of the imposers 3. From the effects 4. From the case of the Church with whom we Communicate 5. From the additional reasons for our Preaching p. 64. What he would have them do that cannot have room in their Churches p. 70. His appeal to my case at Kederminster shamed p. 71 c. His false supposition that most of my Hearers need not our Teaching because they sometimes hear in the Parish-Churches
p. 73. He acquits them from Schisme that separate if the Church be Schismatical 74. I desire the Reader then to Read my few Sheets called A search for the English Schismatick More mistakes p. 74 75. Chap. 6. Whether he be no Christian that is not a fixed Member of a particular Church The Doctors Schismatical Error Confuted p. 76. He by this condemneth Apostles and Evangelists that were Itinerant and unfixed such as Bucer de Regno Dei would have sent abroad my exceptions about Churches and Ministers justified and his Calumny detected p 80. Whether I give too much to the People or am against the Rights of Patrons or Magistrates p. 82. Many more Calumnies to p. 89. He accuseth me as accusing them for naming the sins that I dare not commit p. 89. More of his vain Accusations to p. 92. Whether he be for silencing us p. 92. More of his Calumny p. 99. Considerable Quere to him p. 94. How he would drive men to Separation p. 95 96. He is come to Self-condemning Gentleness in expounding his Rule and Text Phil. 3. 16. p. 97. His sad Ennumeration of the causes of just Separation p. 98. Chap. 7. He begins his Third Part with more false Accusations p. 99. His History for Diocesan Churches against Parochial found fallacious p. 100 c. His vain Plea for the English Frame p. 106 c. He saith It s probable while the Apostles lived there were no fixed Bishops or but few p. 108. And Dr. Hammond saith No Subject Presbyters whether John Fox were the Publisher or Prefacer of the Reformatio Legum c. p. 109. Discipline hard but not unnecessary p. 111. Chap. 8. What the National Church of England is fully discussed and the Doctors Self-contradictions detected He denyeth any true Political Church of England He and we more agreed than he and other high Church-men that are for a Constitutive Political Government p. 112 113 c. He maketh it an introduction of Popery to hold that a Church must have a Constutive Regent Church-power and so fasteneth Popery on the Masters of his cause Chap. 9. That the mutual Consent of Pastors and flock is necessary to the very being of their Relation About Thirty Proofs from Antiquity that the Universal Church was for about 1000 years of that mind and decreed it p. 128 c. The necessity of consent proved from the Nature of the work where the reasons of it are all plainly opened p. 133. c. The Doctors contrary surmises and false Histories fully confuted p. 136 c. Chap. 10. Of the imposed Use of the Cross in Baptisme and denying Baptisme to the refusers p. 153. His vaine excuses confuted Whether the Cross be used as a Sacrament His disingenuous falsifying my words of the use of Crucifixes and other Images p. 156 c. What the Papists ascribe to Sacraments p. 168. Chap. 11. Whether the Excommunicating Church or the Excommunicate Nonconformists for not Communicating when ipso facto Excommunicate be guilty of Schisme p. 163. Chap. 12. Of the English sort of Sponsors and the Exclusion of the Parents Duty p. 167. see more in the Postscript Chap. 13. Of the three French Letters which he subjoyneth p. 171. Chap. 14. Epistles and Testimonies Compar'd with the Doctors And notes on Mr. Jo. Glanviles Book called The Zealous Impartial Protestant With a Letter of his to the Author and a Digression about Dr. Lewis du Moulin his Published Picture and Death-bed Repentance A Postscript of five notices viz. 1. Of a new Observation of the Trade of taking mony to be Godfathers to Poor mens Children and missing Baptisme for want of mony 2. A Letter of Mr. W. Rathbands of his Fathers judgment and Practice 3. An Excellent Confutation of Dr. Stillingfleets History of the extent of Dioceses and Choice of Bishops fully proving that the old Bishops were Parochial or Congregational and always chosen by the People or not made theirs without their free Consent By a Learned and faithful Minister 4. An Excellent Vindication of the silenced Ministers by a Conformist c. 5. My Apologie for the Nonformists Preaching Written by me and Comming out with this ERRATA IN the Preface Sect. 17. line 13. read pleaded for l. 17. after Clergie and People add of â—â—â—â—â—iâ—â—â—sâ— So Evident is the right of Synods Clergie and People AN ANSWER TO Dean STILINGFLEETS c. CHAP. I. The Concord of Dr. Stillengfleet and the Nonconformists especially with the Principles of my Book of Church Concord about the true Nature of Schism and who is the Schismatick written by him at age in his most owned books and not in youth in his Irenicon I stand to all my words against Schism which he hath cited and so I doubt not but he stands to these following of his DIscourse of Idolatry of Rome p. 7. Though we know not what allowances God will make for invincible ignorance we are sure that willful Ignorance or CHOOSING A WORSE CHURCH BEFORE A BETTER IS A DAMNABLE SIN and unrepented of destroys Salvation The Papists consent p. 43. I agree so far with him that every Christian is bound to choose the Communion of the purest Church but which that Church is must be seen by the grounds it brings to prove the Doctrines it teaches to have been delivered by Christ and his Apostles That Church is to be judged purest that hath the best groundâ— and consequently it is of necessity to Salvation to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 194. 195. 1. The Churches power is only to Edification and not to distruction For this was as much as the Apostles challenged to themselves and I hope none dare challenge more But this is a principle of Natural reason that no power in a society ought to be extended 〈◊〉 the 〈◊〉 of it or to contradict the end and designe of it 2. The Apostles were the most competent Judges of what made for the Edification of the Church Pag. 216. 217. 1. It is agreed on both sides that the Scriptures do contâ—ine in them the unquestionable will of that God whom we are bound to serve and it being the end of devotion as it ought to be of our lives to serve him what is there the mind of any one who sincerely desires to do it can be more inquisitive after or satisfyed in than the rules God himself hath given for his own service Because it is so easly a matter for men to mistake in the waies they choose to serve him in I see the world divided more scarce about any thing than this Pag. 218. Can any man imagine a better way if it could be hoped for than that God himself should enterpose and declare his own mind according to what way they ought to serve him And this is acknowledged to be done already by all Christians in the Scriptures and after all this must not all persons concerned be allowed to enquire into that which is owned to be the will of God or do they think
that ordinary people that understand not Latine and Greek ought not to be concerned what becomes of their Souls If they be and do in good earnest desire to know how to please God and serve him what directions will they give him They must do as they are bidden true say they if we were to worship you for Gods we would do as you bid us for we think it fitting to serve God in his own way But we would know whether that God whom we serve hath given us any Rules for his worship or no. How shall we know whether we keep them or not or will you take upon you the guilt of our sins in disobeying his will This seems to be a very just and reasonable request and I fear it will one day fall heavy on those who conceale that which they confess to be the will of God from the knowledge of the people Pag. 548. I agree with him in the way of proof of a Churches purity viz. by agreement with the doctrine of Christ and his Apostles and that the Church is to be judged purest which shews the greatest Evidence of that consent and that every one is bound to enquire which Church hath the strongest motives for it and to embrace the Communion of it Pag. 565. 14. To suppose the books so written to be imperfect i. e. that any thing necessary to be believed or PRACTISED are not conteined in them is either to charge the first Author of them with fraud and not delivering his whole mind or the writers with insincerity in not setting it down and the whole Christian Church of the first ages with folly in believing the fulness and perfection of the Scriptures in order to Salvation Read the rest of those excellent Rules to the end In his excellent Vindication of Arch Bishop Laâ—d called A Rational account of the Protestants Religion he hath the same termes of Communion and the same description of Schism with mine and I know not how better to express my thoughts nor plead my Vindication viz. Pag. 289. In his defence of Arch Bishop Land not yet disowned since so great and considerable parts of the Christian Churches have in these last ages been divided in Communion from each other the great contest and enquiry hath been which party stands guilty of the cause of the present distance and separation For both sides retain still so much of their common Christianity as to acknowledge that no Religion doth so strictly oblige the owners of it to peace and unity as the Christian Religion doth and yet notwithstanding this we find these breaches so far from closing that supposing the same grounds to continue a reconciliation seems to humane reason impossible an Evidence of which is that those persons who either out of a generous desire of seeing the wounds of the Christian world healed or out of some private interest or designe have made it their business to propound terms of reconciliation between the divided parties have been equally rejected by those parties they have professed themselves the members of Page 290. The distance then being so great as it is it is a very necessary enquiry what the Cause of it is and where the main fault lies and it being acknowledged that there is a possibility that corruptions may get into a Christian Church and it being impossible to prove that Christianity obligeth men to Communicate with a Church in all those corruptions its communion may be tainted with it seems evident to reason that the cause of the breach must lie there where the corruptions are owned and imposed as conditions of communion For can any one imagine it should be a fault in any to keep off from communion where they are so far from being obliged to it that they have an obligation to the contrary from the principles of their common Christianity And where men are bound not to communicate it is impossible to prove their not communicating to be Schism For there can be no Schism but where there is an obligation to communion Schism being nothing else but a willful violation of the bonds Christian communion And therefore whenever you would prove the Protestants guilty of Schism you must do it by proving they were bound to communicate with your Church in those things which they are Protestants for disowning of or that there is so absolute and unlimited an obligation to continue in the society of your Church that no conditions can be so hard but we are bound rather to submit to them then not joyn in Communion with you This being a matter of so vast consequence in order to the setling mens minds in the present disputes of the Christian world before I come to particulars I shall lay down those general principles which may manifest how free Protestants are from all imputation of Schism Schism then importing a violation of that communion which we are obliged to the most natural way for understanding what Schism is is to enquire what the foundations are of Christian communion and how far the bounds of it do extend Now the Foundations of Christian communion in general depend upon the acknowledgment of the truth of Christian Religion For that Religion which Christ came to deliver to the world being supposed true is the reason why any look on themselves as obliged to profess it which obligation extending to all persons who have the same grounds to beleive the truth of it thence ariseth the ground of society in this profession which is a common obligation on several persons joyning together in some acts of common concernment to them The truth then of Christian Religion being acknowledged by several persons they find in this Religion some actions which are to be performed by several persons in society with each other From whence ariseth that more immediate obligation to Christian society in all those who profess themselves Christians and the whole number of these who own that truth of Christian Religion and are thereby obliged to joyn in society with each other is that which we call the Catholick Church But although there be such a relation to each other in all Christians as to make them one common society yet for the performance of particular acts of communion there must be lesser societies wherein persons may joyn together in the actions belonging to them But still the obligation to communion in these lesser is the same with that which constitutes the great body of Christians which is the owning Christianity as the only true Religion and way to eternal happiness And therefore those lesser societies cannot in Justice make the necessary conditions of Communion narrower than those which belong to the Catholick Curch i. e. those things which declare men Christians ought to capacitate them for communion with Christians But here we are to consider that as to be a Christian supposeth mens owning the Christian Religion to be true so the conveyance of that Religion being now to us in those books we call
Church wherefore if we suppose that there is no one visible Church whose Communion is not tainted with some corruptions though if these corruptions be injoyned as conditions of communion I cannot communicate with any of those Churches yet it followes not that I am separated from the external Communion of the Catholick Church but that I only suspend Communion with those particular Churches 'till I may safely joyn with them As suppose all the particular men I can converse with were infected with Leprosie my not associating with them doth not imply that I am separated from the Communion of all Mankind but that I am loath to be infected as they are and therefore withdraw my self till I can meet with such healthful persons with whom I may safely associate again And if several other persons be of the same mind with me and we therefore joyn together do we therefore divide our selves from the whole World by only taking care of our own safety And especially if any company of such leprous persons should resolve that none should live among them but such as would eat of those meats which brought that distemper upon them our withdrawing our selves and associating without them will still appear more reasonable and commendable Therefore we say we do not necessarily separate from all Churches that have errors or corruptions in them supposing those errors and corruptions be not imposed on us as conditions of communion and thence though we should grant no one visible Church free from taint or corruption yet it is not necessary we should separate from them all for we may lawfully joyne in communion with Churches having error and corruptions if our joyning be not an approbation of them Thus though the Greeks Armenians Albigenses Abyssins may have some errors or corruptions yet if they be not fundamental and be not joyned as necessary to be approved in order to their communion notwithstanding them we may lawfully communicate with them it doth not then at all follow that if there may be no one visible Church free from error and corruption it would be necessary to separate from the communion of the Catholick Church Because 1. All those particular Churches may not make those errors conditions of communion 2. Though they did we separate not from them as Catholick but as corrupt and erroneous particular Churches Pag. 336. To rectifie such gross mistakes as these are for the future you would do well to understand that Schism formally taken alwaies imports something criminal in it and there can be no just cause for a sin But besides that there is that which if you understand it you would call the materiality of it which is the separation of one part of the Church from another Now this according to the different grounds and reasons of it becomes lawful or unlawfull that is as the reasons do make it necessary or unnecessary for separation is not lawfull but when it is necessary Now this being capable of such a different nature that it may be good or evil according to its circumstances there can be no absolute judgment passed upon it till all those reasons and circumstances be duely examined and if there be no sufficient grounds for it then it is formally Schism i. e. a culpable separation If there be sufficient cause then there may be a separation but it can be no Schism And because the union of the Catholick Church lies in fundamental and necessary truths therefore there can be no separation absolutely from the Catholick Church but what involves in it the formal guilt of Schism it being impossible any person should have just cause to disown the Churches communion for any thing whose beleif is necessary to Salvation And whosoever doth so thereby makes himself no member of the Church because the Church subsists on the beleif of fundamental truths But in all such cases wherein a division may be made and yet the several persons divided retain the essentials of a Christian Church the separation which may be among any such must be determined according to the causes of it For it being possible of one side that men out of capricious humours and fancies renounce the communion of a Church which requires nothing But what is just and reasonable And it being possible on the other side that a Church calling her self Catholick may so far degenerate in Faith and Practice as not only to be guilty of great Errors and corruptions but to impose them as conditions of Communion with her it is necessary where there is a manifest separation to inquire into the reasons and grounds of it and to determine the nature of it according to the Justice of the cause which is pleaded for it Page 357. The Catholick Church therefore lies open and free like a Common field to all inhabitants Now if any particular number of these Inhabitants should agree together to enclose part of it without consent of the rest and not to admit any others to that right of Common without consenting to it which of these two parties those who deny to yeild their consent or such who deny their rights if they will not are guilty of the violation of the publick and common rights of the place Page 358. Although nothing separates a Church properly from the Catholick but what is contrary to the being of it yet a Church may separate her self from the Communion of the Catholick by taking upon her to make such things the necessary conditions of her Communion which never were the conditions of Communion with the Catholick Church Page 359. Since it appears that the Communion of the Catholick Church was free for many hundred years without approving or using these things that Church which shall not only publickly use but enjoyn such things upon pain of Excommunication from the Church doth as much as in her lies draw the bounds of Catholick Communion within herself and so divides her self from the true Catholick Church For whatever confines must likewise divide the Church for by that confinement a separation is made between the part confined and the other which separation must be made by the Party so limiting Communion As it was in the Case of the Donatists who were therefore charged with Schisme because they confined the Catholick Church within their own bounds And if any other Church doth the same which they did it must be liable to the same charge that they were The sum of this discourse is that the being of the Catholick Church lies in Essentials that for a particular Church to disagree from all other particular Churches in some extrinsical and accidental things is not to separate from the Catholick Church so as to cease to be a Church But still what ever Church makes such extrinsical things the necessary conditions of Communion so as to cast men out of the Church who yeild not to them is Schismatical in so doing For it thereby divides it self from the Catholick Church And the saparation from it is so
of England where the Author I suppose some Lawyer Pag. 23. tells us what was the difference between the Papists and them that desired Reformation Nonconformists about the power of Magistrates And. 1. They give the Prince Authority over all Persons Ecclesiastical whatsoever The Papists exempt the Clergy 2. They hold that a Prince may depose a Priest as Solomon did Abiather and accordingly they obey being silenced The Papists deny it 3 They affirm if the Priests make wicked decrees the Prince may enforce them to better The Papists deny it 4. They say Princes must and ought to make Laws for the Church but with the advise of Godly Pastors The Papists deny it 5. They hold that if the Pastors be unlearned and ungodly the Prince may of himself without their advise make Orders and Laws for Ecclesiastical matters The Papists deny it 6. They will subcribe in this point to the Articles of Religion established by Law to the Apology of the Church of England to the writings of Jewel Horn Nowel Whitaker Bilson Fulk They take the Oath of Supremacy Here the second Article seemeth to be contrary to what I have said But the book whence he citeth it de discipl Eccles and all their writings shew that it is but the same that I say which they assert viz. That Princes ought to restrain or silence intollerable men and such Usâ—pers or dilinquents as give just cause 2. That if they mistake and do it unjustly we must leave Temple and Tyths to their will 3. Yea and forbear our own publick Preaching when the publick good on the account of order and peace requireth it but not when the publick good and the necessity of Souls and our own opportunities require the contrary And the silenced that submitted still went on to exercise their Ministry against Law in that manner as best conduced to its ends And what this Auother saith of the Papists I suppose many of the highest Prelatists come nearer then the Nonconformists and were the Prince against them would obey the Bishops before him And the same book describing the Nonconformists in twenty Articles p. 55. in the 8th thus expoundeth it They teach that neither the Miniâ—ters nor people ought to make any general Reformation with â—orâ—â— and armes or otherwise of their own authority change any laws made or â—â—â—â—â—shed for Religion by Authority of Parliament But they hold that the general Reformation doth belong to the Magistrates as Gods Lieutenant and that for themselves they may and ought in dutiful sort both Preach and Write and sac to the Magistrates for redress of Enormities and also practice the ordinances of Christ which he hath commanded his Church to keep to the end of the World And Article 20. It is not all the unprepared Parish that they would have brought under Discipline But those of each Parish who are prepare and willing § 8. In short the demonstration the supplication the humbe motion to the Council and almost all the Nonconformists writings shew that 1. Their great Cause was to set up Parish Discipline under Superior Synods 2. Bâ—ing themselves almost all in publick Churches at least per â—ices and being still in hope of publick reformation they were greatly against the Brownists violence that would break those hopes 3. They held that Christs Law was their Rule which commanded this Discipline which no Magistrate could dispense with 4. But that Magistrates must be obeyed in such ordering of Church matters as belong to them But not in forbearing such exercise of the Ministry as was needful to its ends the Churches good And as it s said they practised accordingly I. The Brownists denyed the truth of the Parish Ministry and Churches and the lawfulness of Communion with them II. The Semiseparatists held it lawful to hear them preach but not to joyn in the Liturgy and Sacrament And this is it that Phil. Nye wrote for III. The Presbyterians and meer Norconformists thought it lawful and meet in those Parishes which had capable Ministers to joyn in both Liturgy Sermons and Sacraments where sin was not imposed on them But so as though forbidden while they had publick Churches to do their best to practice Christs Commands and Discipline and where they could have none to further the same ends as effectually as they could in the opportunities left them But never took it for their duty to leave all their Ministry or publik preaching meerly in obediene to the laws much less to the Bishops When all this is so notorious and when I knew the minds of many aged Nonconformists about forty years agoe as my familiar friends who were all of the same mind in this as I am what history can I be more assured of than as I said that First They took not praying publickly and gathering Assemblies to be therefore sinful because it was forbidden by the Law 2. But to be a sin against Prudence and the ends of their Ministry when it was like to do more hurt than good by exasperating the Prince and depriving themselves and others of better advantages for those holy ends 3. And that it was a duty when it was like to do more good than hurt 4. And therefore they broke Laws where they could be endured even in Chappell 's and Parish Churches § 5. And it is not inconsiderable that the reasons why Calvin Bullinger Zanchy Beza said what they did for submissive forbearing publick Preaching and Church gathering were First Because as they saw that the Prince was resolved not to suffer it so Reformation was then but begun and the Prince and Magistrates were the pricipal means of it and they had great hopes that what could not be done at present to perfect it might be done afterwards at a fitter time King Edward was sain to quiet the seditious Papists by making them beleive that Latin and English was the great difference between the former Mass worship and the Liturgy Aftertimes had no such necessity and tumultuously to disturb the Magistrate in his prudent progress of Reforming had been to serve the enemies of Reformation But in our times Parliaments who the Doctor S. saith are intrusted so Consent for us have these fifty years told the Kingdom that the Reformation was growing backwards and the increase of Popery by favour and publick tolleration designed and much accomplished and Plots threatned the restoring of it and if Parliaments deceived us yet the chief Actors themselves were to be believed Doctor Heylin maketh the syncretism and closure with them in the bosom of the now indulgent Church to be Arch-Bishop Lauds very laudable designs Arch-Bishop Brombal saith Grotius was to have held some place among us as a Protestant and was of the English Bishops mind and he himself doth say the last and I have shewed in his own words that Grotius took Rome for the Mistris of all Churhces and that there was no way for the Union of Protestants but to joyn in Union with Rome and that he owned the
Gospel be dealt with by sober men whose admonitions if they receive they shall give God thanks But if they go on in the Crime they shall be sharply punished as the Gospel prescribeth 5. De Concion Cap. 3. Preachers shall name no guilty person before the multitude unless such as have contemned Ecclesiastical Admonitions such may be named 6. De â—xc Excommunication for none but horrible Crimes c. Cap. 4. and after oft admonition But you Excomunicate all Godly men that do but say your Conformity is not lawful ipso facto by your Canon 7. Cap. 6. We permit not the power of Excomunication to be in any one person Though the consent of the whâ—le Church be specially desirable yet because it is hard to gather and take it let Excommunication thus proceed that the Arch-Bishop Bishop or other lawful Ecclesiastical Judge call one Justice of peace and the Minister of the place where the guilty person dwelleth or his deputy and two or three other Learned and well man â—ered Presbyters in whose presence when the matter hath been most diligently handled aud gravely weighed the sentence of Excommunication shall pass Cap. 7. And be written Cap. 16 There is written a large pious form like a Sermon to be used at the Reconciling of the penitent and his form of confession and petition to be received and then the Pastor of that Church is to ask all the flock whether they will forgive the offender and pray for him and whether they will have him received into their Congregation as a brother And then the Pastor is to exhort the penitent and then absolve him A great and solemn work most unlike your Discipline And then to give God thanks and pray for him and the Church Should we now but move for thus much in order to concord with the Cconformists we have reason to think no importunity could prevail for it were the consequents of our division as dismal as they are now by most proclaimed Yet verily we are most unexcuseable wretches if we have learned no more to this day than they did in so few years or under full power and opportunity will resist that good which they that wanted such opportunity wished for and go back as fast as they went forward Sect. 14. To p. 8. I never said that the troubles at Frankford were so much about free or formal Prayer as that the Presbyterians refused all forms Sect. 15. p. 19. He confesseth that Whittingham Sampson Gilby and others accepted of preferment and employment in the Church the Bishop shewing them kindness for their forward zealous Preaching and this being without their subscribing to conform is it any wonder then that they gathered not Assemblies elsewhere Had the Bishops so tryed us we should never have put them to talk so of our separation but might have done our best to build more Churches Doth none of all this difference their case and ours Sect. 16. p. 20. He confesseth when they were silenced they began to have separate Meetings and yet were all the old Non-Conformists against such Sect. 17. As to Beza's Letter have not I said more against Separation than he doth Doth the Dr. think the Reader so blind as not to see that Beza's words are just of the same importance with the account I gave and contrary to his viz. He trembleth at the thoughts of their exercising their function against the will of the Queen and Bishops for such reasons as may be easily understood though we say never a word of them It s easie indeed to see what he trembles at and why he named them not which he would sure in charity have done had it been because it is sinful disobedience to preach when forbidden It was easie to see what hurt it would have done in the ruine of Preachers and hearers and shaking all the begun Reformation It s not so with us Gualter and Zanchy say not so much against Separation as I do nor John Fox nor Bullinger whom he citeth we say the same Sect. 18. The same I say of Parker and Gifford and I again tell him that he may name many more Hildersham Paget Ame c. I am of their judgment in their opposition to the Brownists but it is a notorious untruth pag. 33. that the force of all the Non-Conformists reasonings against Separation lay in two Suppositions 1. That nothing could justifie Separation from our Church but such corruptions which overthrew the being and constitution of it c. And 1. It must be remembred that Separation being a word of very many sences they held indeed that none ought to separate from a Church accusing it to be none but for that which proved it to be none 2. But did they deny that which all the Christian World confesseth viz. 1. What if our English Divines gathered by Bishop Hall against Burton be in the right that the Church of Rome is a true Church as a Thief is a true man though I think otherwise must not such Bishops or Conformists therefore separate from them 2. What if a Church impose some Lye false Oath or Subscription or some actual Sin in Worship as a condition sine qua non of her Communion is it not lawful to separate into better Assemblies 3. What if they put down all preaching save reading some dry Homilies and all Discipline is it not lawful elsewhere to serve God better But of this more after where he repeateth it The Brownists case was quite other before described Sect. 19. to p. 36 37. We also hold that whosoever separateth from the Church of England 1. As having not that Preaching and Sacraments which are of necessity to Salvation 2. Or as not professing true saving Faith doth by consequence separate from all Churches in the world because they have all the same Word Sacraments and Christian Faith And to this Mr. Jacobs Argument is good p. 38. though he was the man that answered Downam's Sermon for Bishops and esteemed one of the first Independents And Mr. Balls words to the same purpose and the second Supposition p. 39. we grant and think verily that the late Conformists have said more against the truth of the Church of England than we yea that we are the defenders of it against the Brownists and them Ball Bradshaw Gifford Hildersham c. cited by him defend it as we do and better than such as Dr. Heylin Thorndike Mr. Dodwel and such others Did he think any of this concerned me Sect. 20. Yes for p. 74. he saith We would blind the Reader by finding out the disparity of some Circumstances but not one of us can deny that it was their judgment that the holding separate Congregations for worship where there was an agreement in Doctrine and the substantials of Religion was unlawful and schismatical Answ It s pity so seeing a Dr. should tempt men to be so blind 1. As to think all the differences which I have named inconsiderable 2. And to go on to
abuse themselves and others with the ambiguous word Separate no better explained 3. And to think the other causes before and after named of some sort of Separation to be insufficient and I am sorry for the Dr. if this be his own Profession that he would tell any lie or commit any other sin or forsake any other part of Religion rather than separate to other Assemblies from a Church that agreed in Doctrine and the substantials of Worship with him The Presbyterians then are sure of him if they were but in possession and it seems in Moscovy he would forsake preaching But what if the King licensed a preaching Church would he refuse the use of it for fear of separating from a mere reading Church This Protean word separate serveth for many uses I will put one case more to the Dr. not feigned A Conformist Gentleman was of the opinion that his Parish Church was no true Church because the Vicar was a Socinian and another because the Parson was ignorant of the essentials of Christianity and they go to the next Parish Church A Nonconformist in the same Parish goeth to a Nonconformists Chappel but doth not accuse the Parish Church as none as the other do which of these separateth more At Gloucester one took the Diocesan Church for no true Church because Bishop Goodman was a Papist and the Bishop is a constitutive part and yet this man was for Diocesans A Nonconformist went to a Nonconformists Church but would not say the Diocesan Church was none Which separated more He separateth from his Parish Church against the Canon who goeth from an ignorant scandalous Reader to communicate with a Preacher at the next Parish He separateth from the Parish Churches who judgeth them true Churches but having the Kings License joyneth constantly with the French Dutch or Nonconformists as better still owning mental communion where he hath not local and he separateth from the French Dutch or Nonconformist Churches who thus leaveth them as true Churches to joyn with the Church of England as better Many and various are the sorts and degrees of Separation and not all lawful or all unlawful None of these are the Brownists separation which the old Nonconformists confuted which consisted in a denial 1. That the English Ministers were true Ministers 2. And their Churches true Churches 3. Or such as a Christian might lawfully live in communion with in ordinary worship 4. And therefore they were all bound to renounce them and set up others I doubt the Dr. is far more a Separatist than I and such as I for I am for Communion with all Christians as far as they separate not from Christ and I hate the false accusing of any Church as if it were none or its Communion unlawful I can be but in one place at once but in heart I joyn with all Christians on earth except in sin and locally I joyn where I see greatest reason for it preferring that which I judge most agreeable to Gods word so far as I may without greater hurt But the Canonical Conformists unchurch all the Churches here but their own and utterly refuse Communion with them even with those that refuse not Communion with them And some think that forcible silencing fining excommunicating and imprisoning is not the gentlest sort of separating But doth he in all his Book do any thing to satisfie any mans Conscience that would know from what Churches he may or may not separate Not a word that I can find that decideth such a doubt His two words here used are Agreement in Doctrine and substantials of Religion whereas 1. Religion is in Acts and Habits and hath no proper substance and what his term substance meaneth till he tells us none can know It must be either an essential part or an integral part for an Accident I suppose it is not If only an essential part what Christian dare say that I may sin against all the meer integrals of Religion rather than go from the Church that imposeth such sin upon me If it be all the integrals that we must agree in then we differ in no one part of Religion for Accidents are not parts And then who contradicts him When men differ in no part of Religion they will not separate unless merely locally Are all the things named in my first Plea no parts of Religion It may be by Substance he meaneth only the greater sort of Integrals but how shall we know where to six our measures what duty is so small that I may omit it or what sin so small that I may commit it for Communion 2. And as for Doctrine they that differ in any part of Religion are supposed to differ in the doctrine about that part But can any man tell what Doctrine it is that he maketh our agreement in to be necessary or the test of Communion If I should separate from all Churches from which I differ in any the least doctrine I know not where the Diocesan or National Church is that I might hold Communion with Do all the Conformists agree in all doctrines If it be in all that the Law imposeth how various mutable and uncertain is that I distinguish between Doctrine professed by the Church and Doctrine imposed on me to profess it As to the first I will communicate with a Church that hath twenty false Doctrines consistent with the essentials of Christianity and Church Communion As to the second I will not knowingly profess one false Doctrine for Communion with any Church on Earth Did not the Nonconformists differ from the Conformists in the Doctrine of the sufficiency of Scripture for regulating Church-Order and Worship and about the Divine Right of Diocesans and Elders and about Parish Discipline Do not we now differ about the undoubted certainty of the salvation of all dying baptized Infants Will this warrant a separation Sect. 2 1. p. 75. He tells us very confidently that diversity of circumstantial pretences for Separation alter not the case But 1. It s true that if twenty men have twenty false pretences for Separation none of them are thereby justified but if one man have a just cause it justifieth him I named very many just and unjust causes in my Plea and he giveth no answer to it 2. Are they such circumstances before named Oaths Declarations Subscriptions Doctrine c 3. What if the Law should change and allow of various Churches what if the King license them These be but circumstances What if the Plague drive away the Parish Ministers what if the Churches be burnt and the people forsaken will no such circumstances make other Assemblies lawful because he calls them separate Sect. 22. p. 78. His undertaking is repeated He is certain that preaching in opposition to our established Laws is contrary to the Doctrine of all the Nonconformists of former times Answ If I have not proved the contrary I cannot prove that they were English men But 1. he proveth that they were all of that
If in the beginning of Queen Elizabeths Reign when abundance of Papist Priests staid in the Churches for their Benefices a man had quietly gone from them to the Nonconformists I could not blame him though he had not been sure that they were not changed And I still say that if such erre by too much care to avoid sin and save their souls 1. It is a far greater error to give them the occasion 2. And in such as you to say that therefore they must be so far forsaken as that none may preach to them If I may preach to no erring people 1. I must preach to none 2. Or be no Physician to any that are sick And I must say that though I found no call to gather any together as a Church and give them the Sacrament I cannot say that no other had such unless I had heard them all speak for themselves yea I see such notorious need in many places that I dare not blame them Sect. 5. And now Reader Qu. whether the Dr. hath truly stated the case between him and me and whether you can expect truth and edification in his handling of a false-stated case These are the questions which as my accuser in his Book he should have handled had truth been his design 1. Whether for one that holdeth so much Communion with their Churches as I have done and here describe it be sinful separation to Preach in and Communicate with the Assemblies of Nonconformists or mixt ones as I have done 2. Whether to deny this to be sinful Separation or Separation as commonly taken for Schism be disingenious and worse than theirs that openly renounce their Communion Sect. 6. Three things he saith p. 94. we cannot deny 1. That there is no reason of Separation because of thâ— Doctrine of their Church Answ 1. We distinguish of Separation There is no reason to separate from you as no Church or further than we do there is reason to deny our consent 1. To your foresaid Doctrine of all baptized dying Infants undoubted salvation not excepting those of Atheists and Infidels 2. To your included Doctrine implyed in your Impositions viz. That if a man have unlawfully made a Vow and Oath to endeavour in his Place and Calling to reform some corruptions in Church-Government yea or to repent of his sin and oppose Popery Prophaneness and Schism there is no obligation on him from that Oath and Vow to do it These and such other Doctrines we separate from so far as to reject them Sect. 7. His second supposed Concession is That there is no other reason of Separation because of the terms of our Communion than what was from the beginning of the Reformation Answ 1. There are in my judgment no common reasons for going further from you than we do nor to justifie that which is commonly known by the name of Separation But there are many and great reasons to justifie our measure of dissent and ministration and to say that we grant there are no more reasons now than were then is too bold an untruth There is more reason 1. From the quality of the things imposed 2. From the designs and drift of the Imposition 3. From the effects 4. From the aggravation of Conformity as in the Church that we must communicate with 5. From the things which give us a fuller cause for our Preaching and Assemblies viz. 1. The late general contrary Church State and Engagement to it 2. The Plague 3. The burning of the Churches 4. The Kings License and Clemency 5. The number and quality of them that seek our helps Of these briefly in order 1. As to the things imposed now which were not then 1. The Vestry Act was not then made by which so considerable a part of your Parish Churches as the Vestries are to renounce all obligations to endeavour any alteration of the Government of the Church from the Oath and Vow called the Covenant So that all Reformation of Church Government as so sworn was thus renounced by them who in a sort represent the Parish Church 2. The Act of Uniformity had not then imposed the same declarative Renunciation of all such obligation on all the Ministers and Schoolmasters in England as it now doth 3. The Corporation Act was not then in being which constituteth all the Officers in power in all Cities and Corporations of such only as declare that there is no obligation from the said Oath at all not excepting so much as the sworn duties of opposing Popery Prophaneness and Schism to repent of sin and amend our lives And if swearing and vowing against Schism no whit bind men if the Oath were but unlawfully imposed why should the Dr. make so great a matter of it and think that his reasonings should make men afraid of Gods service if he will but call it Schism 4. None of these Acts then required men to profess and subscribe that there is from that Vow or Oath no such Obligation on any other person and so to become Vouchers for the Souls and Consciences of many hundred thousands whom we never saw even those Parliament men that were not forced to it but imposed it on others when we know not in what sense they took it 5. The Re-ordination of Ministers ordained by Presbyteries was not then required and made a necessary condition of their Ministration and Church Relation even by them that confess Re-ordination unlawful and therefore plainly intimate the nullity of the first 6. The Act of Uniformity was not then made which requireth all Ministers publickly to declare their Assent and Consent to all things contained in and prescribed by the Liturgy Book of Ordination though part of this was in a Canon 7. The false Rule for finding Easter-day was not then to be assented and consented to as a condition of the Ministry 8. Nor the new Doctrine or Article of Faith of the undoubted certainty by Gods word that baptized dying Infants are saved without any exception of the children of Atheists c. For the old words at Confirmation as many Drs. of the Church have shewed only meant that nothing else was necessary on the Churches part that is not Confirmation 9. The word Pastor as applyed to Parish Ministers distinct from Curates was not then blotted out of most places in the Liturgy nor the twentieth of Acts as applied to Presbyters left out Take heed to your selves and the Flock c. in plain design to alter the Office and Parish Churches 10. The Oxford Oath was not then imposed to banish Ministers above five miles from all Cities and Corporations and Places where they had of late years preached so that their old Flock or Friends yea Wives and Children that could not follow them might not so much as see or hear such Ministers in their Families or familiar converse that would have come to the publick Churches And all Nonconformist Ministers that took not the Oath were thereby forbidden to come to the Parish Churches
say against it 4. Few of the most ignorant that needed them would then have left the Parish Churches to hear Nonconformists in private but now many will come to us that cannot get in to the Parish Churches Other different effects may be named Sect. 10. 4. And though I accuse you not you that unjustly said before that I made you seem a company of perjured Villains seems to think your self that the fore alledged causes make many of the people think little better of some and a Church thought to consist of such Pastors and Vestries c. essential parts differ from those that do not 2. And the multitude of Atheists and filthy livers and the thousands of Noncommunicants who are still taken for real members of your Churches have now stood out against so long means and patience that the reasons of longer waiting for Reformation much differs from theirs in the beginning 3. The Canon at first did not ipso facto excommunicate all that do but profess themselves Nonconformists as since it did 4. The Bishops and their Canoneers had not then cast out 2000 nor neer so many Preachers as now and so did not so much tempt the people to flee from them as persecutors thorns thistles or wolves 5. When one Bishop cast any out some other usually would endure them but now it was not so 6. The people saw daily that you bore with those as no Schismaticks that never communicated nor used to hear you even the greater half of many Parishes and took them for Church members as is said and therefore they had reason to hope that they that communicated somewhere with Protestants especially that communicated also with your own Churches were as good Members and by good Pastors would be as well endured Sect. 11. 5. Lastly The forenamed causes of our preaching much differ 1. We saw the Kingdom though under usurpers engaged by Vow Practice and about sixteen years possession and custom to another way and who could expect that a Law should presently change them all and assure them of absolution 2. They that conformed were the more averse to see about six thousand Ministers that had gone the other way so suddenly change as to declare assent and consent to a Book which they never saw 3. The case of the Plague the burning of the Churches the Kings Licenses c. I named before which verily made a great difference 4. And the numbers that call to us for help makes a great difference when then they that needed them most did not desire it These are some differences Sect. 12. p. 95. He saith There is no reason of separation because of the doctrine of our Church Answ But now you have corrupted it in the Article of Infants undoubted salvation before described and before by the doctrines about Prelacy Godfathers power and duty Impositions c. implyed in your practical Canons there is great cause of Nonconformity P. 96. Repeateth that great mistake that there are no alterations in our own judgment which make the terms of Communion harder than before Answ What hope then of being understood how far is this from truth The terms are sar harder to Ministers and to the people they are easier in some things as amending some translations c. but it is not to them a small matter to make such a change of their Pastors as in too many Parishes is made The Bishop promised them at Kiderminster when he forbad me to preach that they should be no losers by the change They said and I had great reason to believe them that the Successor knew so little of the sence of the Creed and preach'd so rarely four times a year I am loth to tell you how that they durst not be guilty of encouraging him in undertaking the charge of Souls nor durst take him for their Pastor And the great increase of buildings in London shuts thousands now out of such Parish Churches who could have got in heretofore and some more differences are before implyed p. 97. As other Churches own your Churches so do we though not your imposed sins Sect. 13. p. I was in hope to have met with some answer to my importunate Question What would you have the many score thousands do that cannot come within your Churches to hear But no importunity will prevail for so small a matter with inexorable men But he saith 1. that this is but a pretence 2. And that no man denyeth that more places are desirable c. Ans 1. It is me that he is now accusing why doth he barely say and not prove that it 's but a pretence I never set up a Meeting place but in St. Martins Parish where are said to be forty thousand more than can come within the Church And when they would not suffer me to use it I gladly left it to the use of the Parish Minister I preach now twice a week elsewhere but both the places are in Neighbourhoods where many thousands cannot hear in the Parish Churches What if other men have other sufficient reasons as the utter incapacity of some Ministers or the like doth it follow that my own case and prosessed reason is a meer pretence why then did I use no publick preaching while I lived in such Villages where the people might go to Church and why did I constantly twice a day lead them thither though some disliked it 2. The question is not whether more Churches are desirable But where they are not whether many thousands must live like Atheists without all publick teaching or Divine Worship for fear of being called Schismaticks Is not this plainly to chuse damnation If the Gospel be needless why do we wish the Heathens had it Why subscribe you against mens hopes of being saved in all their several Religions If Church worship be needless why is a Clergy to be so honoured and maintained at so dear a rate Aud why do you make such a stir with Separatists to bring them to your Churches Can men not blinded by interest chuse but wonder that so many thousands in a Parish should be taken for Church Members and live quietly that come not to any Church or never communicate with any and yet that godly persons who hear and communicate with their old tryed Pastors yea with such as communicate with you should be preach'd and written against as Schismaticks and judged to that which some endure Did this Dr. think that to drop in the case of other men when he was at a loss would make good his charge against me and such as I Mr. Tombes and Mr. Williams preached other doctrine do I do so and have you proved it But seeing he will needs bring the case to Kiderminster whether I would suffer Mr. Tombes to gather a Congregation I must not balk it but advise him hereafter to keep himself at a greater distance and not to put his own followers who are willing enough to believe him upon utter impossibilities He sped better
your sight How will you escape being judged no rightful Possessor of your Deanry or Prebend or the King's Chaplains place or the Parish Church of St. Andrews I know not how And yet if an Usurper accuse you here and say e. g. that the Church of St. Andrews is his and not yours must not the people judge which of you they will take for the Usurper and which they will joyn with and obey In the times of Usurpation many of the people judged the Bishops to be none of their Pastors nor the ejected Ministers must not the rest therefore judge that they were Where Usurpers deny the King 's Right ought not the people to judge him to have right because they may err and what Prince or Prelate may not the people judge Usurpers What Landlord may not the Tenants deny What Master the Servants What Husband the Wife But must they not therefore be discerning Judges who is their Landlord Master Husband What Schoolmaster may not unlearned men miscensure What Physician may they not vilisie And yet they shall judge and choose for themselves and speed accordingly who can help it deny men a judgment of discretion to guide their own choice and actions and you contradict mankind and deny men to be men What in the world is more abused than Reason and Freewill and yet men must act by Reason and Freewil It 's unworthy a Divine to cry out against a thing for such unavoidable Inconveniences as humane darkness and badness do necessitate and to swallow Camels on the other side and take no notice of the mischiess thereof nor once to tell us how to escape both Sect. 25. He instanceth in mens censure of me for the Doctrine of Justification and asketh Are men bound to separate from me Answ One would think by many such words that the Doctor did seriously believe that I had 〈◊〉 that all men are bound to follow an 〈◊〉 Judgment and to theyâ—alâ—ly â—alâ—ly judge they ought If he think not that I said so I would not name his fault lest I more offend him If he think I said so I had hoped weaker Readers could have better understood me When I read in the Books of some Conformists yet living whom I much honour that to obey Conscience though it err is to obey God I took it for my duty oft and copiously especially in my Christ Direct to open that case and to prove that Conscience is no Law-maker but only a discerner of Gods Law and that an erring Conscience involveth a man in sin whether he followeth it or not because God changeth not his Law when we change our Judgments of it But yet there are some cases in which it is a farr greater sin to go against Conscience though it err than with it The Dr. dare deny none of this And doth ill if he would perswade men that I deny it and that God makes it mens duty to do ill whenever they judge it good or forsake good when they judge it evil Sect. 26. But the great offence is p. 130 that I insinuate that the whole Body of the Church is guilty of great Faults Conformity being a scandalous thing with thirty tremendous Aggravations And no wonder if men so judging prefer others c. Answ Again and again I say 1. This is unrighteous dealing To impose all those things on us To cast us out of the Ministry and Churches for not obeying To Fine and imprison us and accuse us as Schismaticks and Seditions To write and preach for the execution of the Laws against us to our Ruine To aggravate our Crime because we tell them not our Reasons To call us to tell them what we stick at To threaten to get the King to force us to give our Reasons To declare in Press and Pulpit that we wilfully keep up a Schism and have nothing to say for it To continue all this when we have been silent seventeen years as fearing that they could not bear it And after all this when we disavowed any Accusation of them and only told them what we feared our selves to come upon us with this charge of deep accusing their Conformity is injustice if there be any in the World Either it is sin or no sin which we fear If none why are we not confuted or invited yet to give our proofs If sin who should be most offended To be yet plainer with you had the case been in the times of the old Prophets and Priests I question whether to let such a Kingdom alone so long in that which we judge to be so great sins would not have been heavily charged on the Preachers And I profess that my conscience is more in doubt whether my so long forbearance was not my sin than whether saying at last what I did was sin And I had nothing to satisfie it but the men that I ought to judge wiser than my self perswaded me that it would have done more hurt than good and caused but our further rending And I think the Conformists should have been desirous to help them to try whether it were sin or not and to have been thankful for helping to save them from it if it proved such But though hence I extenuate the too great withdrawings of some men against their too deep accusations he knoweth that notwithstanding all these aggravations I neither justified nor practised proper Separation Sect. 27. p. 133. The next charge is that I make them Usurpers viz 1. All that come into the place of the ejected Ministers at least to the people that consent not But Law and Usurpation are contrary Answ 1. I never said that all are Usurpers to all the people that consent not If the body of the Church consent the man is no Usurper though some odd persons consent not He is the Churches Pastor though not the refusers 2. I never said that any that had the Law for them were Usurpers of the Tithes and Temples 3. I never said that all that succeed ejected Ministers are Usurpers many of them have the Churches after-consent though not their Election Yea I often said 1. That it is the peoples duty to consent to the change when it is for the Churches good 2. And that their constant Communion signifieth their consent But I will not believe yet that the Law will prove a man no Usurper of the Pastoral Relation And when I have so largely proved the contrary to be true and to be the judgment of the ancient Churches it 's an unsatisfactory course to me to leave it unanswered and suppose himself in the right Not only the first 300 years but even under Constantius Valens Theodosius Junior Zeno Basiliscus Anastatius Philippicus Justinian c. even the Patriarchal Seats practised the contrary keeping their chosen Pastors and refusing those imposed by the Emperors and other Bishops Seates the Emperors seldom meddled with as to the choice Yea in Arcadius's days Chrysostomes Joannites in his imperial City were of another mind
more such might have deceived a man that judged by his words And his arguing that it is unlawful to preach to them because it is unlawful to hear What was the meaning of all this if not silencing us Sect. 34. p. 140. The next Crime is Plea p. 42. As long as they suppose the terms of our Communion to be sinful they say The Schism doth not lie on those that separate but on those that do impose such terms and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers Ans It 's hard to know what words to use to detect all these historical untruths without being thought passionate 1. I never said that supposing them sinful will justifie a false supposer but have oft said the clean contrary their supposing is of his forging 2. I said not the Schism doth not lie on those that separate but only that it's Schism in the Imposers This also is his Fiction 3. And I said not and therefore they may lawfully separate from such imposers But all Readers will not stay to find out his Forgeries But how much of this he said once himself see in my Chap. 1. Sect. 49. But here he comes to some closing distinction which should have gone before Between terms of Communion plainly and in themselves sinful and such as are only fancied to be so through prejudice or wilful ignorance or error of conscience Ans What a deal of labour might he have spared himself and us if he had here fixed the Controversie in the beginning we thankfully accept your late distinction we ever desired here to put it to the Issue If it be through prejudice wilful Ignorance or Error that we judge Conformity a sin not only Separation but Nonconformity is a sin If we do not prove some parts of Conformity for one is enough to be plainly sinful which are imposed as Conditions of our Ministerial Communion and somewhat imposed on the people as conditions 〈◊〉 all that part of your Communion which I ever disswaded them from let the blame be ours Sect. 35. He passeth next to them that deal more ingenuously than I in owning Separation And then returneth to me p. 151. and he over and over repeateth his false accusation that I think it lawful to communicate with them occasionally but not as Churches as thinking they want an essential part viz. a Pastor with Episcopal Power but as Oratories and so that I renounce Communion with their Churches as Churches Answ If these untruths had been made without evidence only and not also against evidence they had been the more excuseable in a man of consideration But now they are not so when I have so often declared that I take the Parish Churches that have true Pastors for true governed Churches and prove that they have true Bishops Episcopos Gregis whether the Diocesans will or not because Gods Will and not the Investers instituteth their Office and measureth their power and the people shew their consent by constant Communion Sect. 36. Then because I never gathered a Church nor baptized any in 20 years nor gave the Sacrament in 18 he would know what Church I have been of all this time and he supposeth of no Church Ans I thought he had done with this before but he thinks it an advantage not to be so easily let go Would he know 1. What my Thoughts were 2. Or my Church-Covenant 3. Or my actual Communion He shall know all 1. I thought divers Ministers where I lived true Pastors and the Churches true Churches I cannot say so of every Curate 2. I made no Covenant with any of them If I had Mr. Cheny would have condemned me of Atheism Infidelity and what not 3. With divers of them I went constantly to the Liturgy Sermon and Sacrament as with true Churches with some of them I only joyned in prayer and hearing I heard Dr. Rieves till he caused me to be sent to Jail and then I could not And though I was accused by many for hearing a swearer I told them he swore not in the Pulpit I heard his poor Curate constantly when I was accused for hearing a Drunkard and told them that he was not drunk in the Pulpit But I must tell you I communicated also with some Nonconformists And now account me of a Church or no Church as you please I doubt you are renewing the Independant Questions with me which I am loth to dispute 1. Qu. Whether an ordained Minister must be a private Member of another mans Church Q. 2. Whether when a Non-resident Dean leaveth his Parish to an ignorant drunken Curate the Parish Church be essentiated by its relation to the Resident Curate or the Non-resident Dean Q. 3. Whether a Minister not degraded but silenced living in such a Parish is bound toâ—ke that Curate for one that hath the Pastoral Charge of his Soul and aâ— the rest of the flock to commit his Soul to his Pastoral Conduct in personal private and publick Offices 4. But I would ask the Dean himself whether a man may not be a fixed Member of two or three Churches at once The Reasons of the Quaere are 1. Because by them a man may be the sixed Pastor of two or three Parish Churches at once And an Integral Member of many is not so hard a case as to be a constitutive Regent Part of many 2. Because a man may have two houses in two Parishes at once As many Londoners have half their Family at a near Country house and half at a City house and are themselves part of the week or day at one and part at the other And they make Covenants with neither but what actual Communion intimateth Q. â— And if so why might not I at once be judged a Member of two Churches at once so far as I communicate oft with both I therefore answer his question further what Church I was a Member of 1. I was a Member of Christs Universal Church Is that none and yet is in the Creed 2. I was a Member of the reformed Church if you will call that One because associated in one Reformed Religion 3. I was a Member of the Church of England both as a Christian Kingdom and as the Churches in England agreeing in the Christian Reformed Religion 4 I was a Member of the Provincial Church of Canterbury so far as living peaceably in it and submitting both to such power as they had from the King as Magistrates and a meer general helping instructing care of many Churches could make me 5. So far also I was a Member of the Diocesan Churches where I lived 6. And I was a Member of some Parochial Churches so far as constant Communion could make or prove me And of others two at once so far as partial and moveable Communion could prove me If this will not satisfie you I have proved before and oft to some Independants that many men are under no obligation to be fixed Members of any Parish Church whether the
King be of any I know not Sect. 37. But p. 152. he comes upon me why I thought it not my duty all this while to Baptize Administer the Sacrament was I not solemnly bound by Ordination to one as well as the other Presbyters of old were rarely allowed to preach Ans 1. You tell the World what measure we must expect from such as you If we had all forborn any Church gatherings and Pastoral undertaking of Flocks and both Sacraments c. and only preached as loth to offend you more than needs our accusations had but been the greater which incourageth your more ingenious Dissenters to do what they also are accused of 2. Do you not know our Reasons They are these 1. Because we suppose there is a greater want of our preaching than of our administring Sacraments And we would obey the 〈…〉 in all things lawful and go from you and offend you no further than 〈…〉 will justifie us 2. Because a Ministers Relation to the Church 〈…〉 and to the world ceaseth not when his relation to a Parish Church may cease And we have not the same obligations to give the Sacrament to all the Christians or World where we preach as we have in a Parish Charge Paul thanketh God that he baptized not many Corinthians because he was not sent to baptize but to preach the Gospel nor is the terrible charge 2 Tim. 4. 12. equal as to both 3. Our Ordination bound us to preach and administer Sacraments when we are thereto lawfully called And we were so called to one when we were not to the other nor were all of us so called alike But when we know that this way doth as much offend you we may go further in due time Aud do you in one part of your Book blame us for going further than the old Nonconformists as you thought and in the second thus accuse us for not going further Sect. 38. He is again at his talk of only occasional Communion And had his mistake no Occasion yes he that readeth my Books may see what that is 1. When I have said that some Parishes having not capable or called Pastors I take to be no true Political Churches but yet can communicate with such as Oratories or Chappels 2. That some true Churches I communicate with in transitu or occasionally as strangers whose Discipline and Ministers Calling I am not bound to take account of 3. I tell those that withdraw too far and take some true Churches for none that were it so they might occasionally join with them as Oratories 4. And those that dare not commit their Souls to the Pastoral Conduct of some weak and bad men that yet they may occasionally communicate with them upon great and urgent Reasons And here he gathereth his oft repeated untrue Reports Sect. 39. p. 156. He grants there is no Separation where there is no Obligation And he will prove us obliged to constant Communion with them 1. Because we must use all lawful means for Peace and Unity Ans 1. We are ready to prove that our Conformity nor our forbearing to preach the Gospel are no lawful means 2. Can you as well prove 1. That it is not lawful for you to joyn with us 2. And to forbear silencing excommunicating fining and imprisoning us Was it no lawful means for Peace and Unity to have forborn imposing all the Covenants Professions Subscriptions Oaths and Practises of what you call indifferent and we think sunful 3. And is it not lawful for Parents to enter their own Children at Baptism in Covenant with God 4. Is it unlawful to Christen such as scruple your use of the Cross 5. Or to receive those to Communion that scruple your Gesture 6. 〈…〉 forbear Canonical Excommunicating all professed Nonconformiâ—… Land 7. Or to let Lords and Gentlemen choose any Nonconfoâ—… to be Tutors to their Children whilst the Papists may send theirs to Doway St. Omers c. He saith he is perswaded it is one of the provoking sins of the Nonconformists that they have been so backward to do what they were convinced they might with a good conscience Ans Woe to us if we be not willing to know our sins But 1. If you will tell me of any one lawful thing that I have omitted that tended to Peace I will thank you 2. An indifferent thing is no means of Peace when it will do more hurt than good To cease the Ministry we durst not To use some indifferent forms in your Churches we could not being cast and kept out And to use the same to those that are against them when it will hurt them and procure no peace with you and those have sped worst from you that have come nearest you aud nothing will serve but all what tendency hath this to Unity You know my own case proveth all this I regarded not the censures of any that go too far so as to keep me from doing what I judged lawful And did it tend to peace No one sends me to Jail when I went twice a day to his Church Others say He is like an Ape that is so much the more ugly because he is like a man Another more sober saith I know not what to make of Mr. B. He communicateth with us and he preacheth to the Nonconformists Like a man that will go one step on one side the hedge and another step on the other And this man is much in the right for I say still It is the separating hedges in Christ's Vineyard that I hate and the enclosing hedge that I am for I have Business Friends Relations and great Duties on both sides the hedge some with you and some with others And if your hedges would separate Parents from Children Husband and Wife Christian Neighbours c. causelesly I will not be so separated but do my best to pull down that hedge And again consider whose sin it is that so many lawful things are denyed us for Unity Hold but to your Rule here and we are agreed And he seemeth to consent For Sect. 40. p. 176. Of the Rule Phil. 3. 16. he saith If I will but allow that by virtue of that Rule men are bound to do all things lawful for the preserving the peace of the Church we have no further difference about this matter Ans It 's well he will say so much of the Rule we gladly consent Then all the question is what 's lawful on both sides I add one Q. more Is it not lawful for peace to forbear forcing men to disoblige 1000 whom they never knew from being obliged by an Oath and Vow to that part of the matter which is good If it be the conjunction of some things bad that disobligeth them then he that inserteth a bad thing is free from all obligations of his vow even in materia licita necessaria And if the 〈…〉 of imposing Power be made the cause whether is the Corâ—… Oath imposed by a superior Power on the King or
and next parts were all to communicate with the Bishop and were no more than could meet to choose the Bishops and to be present as to the main body of them and disciplinary debates to give consent 5. In Cyprian's time at Carthage a place of greatness and great numbers of Christians the Church was grown very great but not beyond the exercise of such personal Communion as I described And the Bishops there and round about being worthy men kept up the life of the former Discipline And as great as their Church was we would be glad of such an Episcopacy Order and Communion For I oft told you that by present Communion I meant not that all must meet in one place at once For the tenth part of some Parishes cannot But that as Neighbours and Citizens may have personal Converse and Meetings per vices of some at one time and some at another as different from meer mental Communion or by Synods or Persons delegate or as their Governours or Representatives and this for mutual Edification in holy Doctrine Worship and Conversation And that the footsteps of this remained long when worldly Reasons had made a change And all this I have proved so fully in my Treatise of Episcopacy besides what 's said in my Abstract of the Episcopal History that till some man shall confute the full Evidence of Antiquity there brought I have no more in Reason to do upon that subject And though the Doctors History of this be the most considerable part of all his Book yet so far doth he leave what I say uncontradicted that I find not one word that he saith against any of my Testimonies nor any for his own cause for the first two hundred years But when he should have proved the extent of the Churches at two hundred years he begins his historical Proofs at two hundred and fifty for three or four great Cities in the World and so proceeds to Augustine at above four hundred and Victor Uticensis about four hundred and ninety Theodoret four hundred and thirty where he supposeth me to say that of his City which I said of the Diocess of that City And to confute all Impertinencies and groundless Suppositions while my full proofs are unanswered is but loss of time Sect. 3. His chief argument is that no City how great soever was to have more Bishops than one Ans 1. He can prove no such Rule in the first two hundred years 2. See how well the defenders of Prelacy agree Gratious de Imperio in Anotat and Dr. Hammond I cited who say that Cities at first had two Bishops in each Rome Antioch c. one of Jewish Christians and one of Gentile Christians and saith D. H. Peter at Rome was Bishop of the Jews and Paul of the Gentiles and they had two Successors and saith Gretius The Churches were formed to the manner of the Synagogues and there were divers Churches with divers Bishops in the same City in 1 Tim. 5. 17. de Imp. p. 355 356 357. 3. In the fourth Century a Council at Capua decreed that the two Bishops with their several Churches at Antioch Flavian's and Evagrins should live together in Love and Peace 4. This was a good custom while there were in the Cities no more than one Bishop might take care of And the custom held when times altered the case and reason of it And Possession and the Desire to avoid division made it held up by good men 5. I have at large in my Treatise of Episcopacy confuted the opinion of appropriating Bishops to Cities and so did the old Churches that set up Chorepiscopos Sect. 4. p. 259. He saith In Cities and Dioceses under one Bishop were several distinct Congregations and Altars Ans 1. Yes no doubt after the second Century and perhaps in two Cities a little before but in few in the World till towards the fourth Century 2. This is the same man who in the very Sermon which he defendeth said p. 27. Though when the Churches increased the occasional Meetings were frequent in several places yet still there was but one Church and one Altar and one Baptism and one Bishop with many Presbyters assisting him And this is so very plain in Antiquity as to the Churches planted by the Apostles themselves in several parts that none but a stranger to the history of the Church can ever call it in question But when I told him how this would agree us and hurt his cause he will quickly fall under his own censure and became a stranger to the history of the Church asserting many Altars in one Church of one Bishop This Sermon was written since his Irenicon And now he feigneth a distinction between An Altar taken with particular respect to a Bishop and for the place at which Christians did communicare But what was the Altar that was taken with particular respect to the Bishop Was it not the material place of Communicn And so the members of the distinction are co-incident Saith Optatus lib. 6. Quid est Altare nisi sedes corporis sanguimis Christi Each Church had long but one of these The best Altars that were made after the chief Church Altars were not for ordinary communion but honorary of some Martyrs The truth is the phrase of unum Altare was taken up when each Church had but one but to set up Altare contra Altare continued after to signifie Anti-Churches But I have fully answered this in my Treatise of Episcopacy His conjectures from the numbers of Officers c. he may see there also sufficiently confuted and in Ch. Hist And the odd instance of Theodoret he doth not at all make credible by his willing belief of Metius and other Popish Feigners And were that Epistle genuine a Cypher is easily dropt in by Corrupters It hath need of better authority that shall be so singular from the case of all other Churches And I suppose he knoweth that Cyrus was not a simple Bishoprick but a Metropolitane Seat and might have 800 Parish Bishops Yea whereas there were under Antioch seven Dioceses and fifteen Provinces or as others say thirteen that yet had many Bishops under them as Seleucia twenty four c. that were more dependant on Antioch Cyrus was one of the eight Provinces or Metropolis that were per se subsistentes And therefore when Theodoret said how many Churches were under hands it 's like he meant Bishops Churches and not meer Presbyters and either a Cypher dropt in corrupted the account or else the Bishops had but single Congregations But for my part as the case so late concerneth me not so I see nothing to perswade me that that Epistle is genuine and uncorrupt But I would not have a Diocess which then had many Provinces or a Province which had many Bishops Churches be taken for a single Church Sect. 5. The same I say of Carthage which was the Metropolis of Africa and the first of six Provinces before
is a matter of more weight than Tythes and Temples If Tythes be proved not to be of Divine Right all that can be expected is that if the flock cannot trust him whom the Patron chuseth they let him give his Tythes and Temple to whom he please and they will trust their souls with such as they dare and safely may But if he will chuse and offer them one whom they can safely and comfortably accept so as Tythes and Temples shall preponderate in case of small difference in the men prudence obligeth them to accept of the advantage The same I say of the Magistrates countenance and approbation But if the difference be very great it 's better stretch our purses to build new Temples and pay our Pastors than trust our souls on the Pastoral Conduct of ignorant malignant unfaithful or heretical men § 6. V. I have oft said that mutual consent is necessary to the being of the relation of Pastor and Flock And though sometimes the Rulers imposition and the Patrons choice may make it the Peoples duty in prudence to consent when the good preponderates the hurt not else yet till they consent the Relation is not existent As if Children were bound to take Wives and Husbands by the Command and fore choice of Parents yet it 's no Marriage till they consent § 7. The common objection is from the inconvenience if the several parties agree not To which I answer 1. The mischief of the contrary way is worse than that inconvenience 2. There is nothing in this World without inconveniences where all things and persons and actions are imperfect 3. If Parents and Children agree not about their Marriage it hath great inconveniences And yet neither Parents Government nor Childrens consenting Liberty must be denyed 4. In so weighty a Case divers Locks and Keys keep the Churches treasure safe Prince Patron People and Ordainers will not so often agree on a vile person as any one of them alone may do § 8. And now judge how Logically how honestly the Doctor hath stated the Case and made me Intolerably indiscreet and tragical against Magistrates Patrons and Laws And try if you can understand what it is instead of this that he would have I tell him again that if he deny the necessity of the flocks consent to the mutual relation he notoriously opposeth the judgment and practice of Antiquity and the Universal Church of Princes Patriarchs Prelates Councils and People and fights against the full stream of Historical evidence for a new crooked way that would make as many modes of Religion as there are different Princes And here he wonders what he said that occasioned such undecent passion It seems he felt some passion in reading it and thought he must have the like that wrote it And so let any man obtrude any pernicious thing on the Church and he can easily prove the detector to have undecent passion for giving a bad Cause its proper name § 9. But he cannot find out the reason of my inference that then Princes may impose what Religion they please Answ Not understanding with some men goes for confuting To put Religion for the mode of Religion is too little a slip of his to be insisted on But is not my inference necessary I urged him to tell me in what Countries and under what sort of Princes the Rule holds that the People must not judge whether the offered Pastors be Hereticks nor refuse them if Prince and Patron present them He will not be entreated to tell me I tell him that if the Rule be universal when a Papist Socinian Anabaptist Antiepiscopal c. Prince and Patron present men of their own mind and they are instituted the People must take and trust them as their Pastors And is not this to set up in all the Churches what modish Religion Prince and Patron please Is this hard to be understood Yet he calls this Railing on him for suppositions of my own making And here he steps over to another man § 10. Before I come to his undertakings I will repeat anothers railing and undecent passion against his Cause And I desire the Reader to note how well the Doctors of the Church of England agree and to learn which of them it is that we must believe both as to History and Right It is Mr. Herbert Thorndike in his Treatise of Forbearance of Penal It is to no purpose to talk of Reformation in the Church to regular Government without restoring the Liberty of chusing Bishops and the priviledge of enjoying them to the Synods Clergy and People of each Diocess So evident is the right of Synods Clergy and People in the making of those of whom they consist and by whom they are to be Governed that I need make no other reason of the neglect of Episcopacy than the neglect of it Yet these two are Doctors of one Church but we are no Members of it § 11. I again say that either the Reader hath read the Church History and Canons or not If not how can he tell who to believe that report them the Doctor or me But if he have I will no more dispute this Case with him than I would do whether English Parliaments used to make Laws He is past my conviction if he be not convinced § 12. And I will again say that I will yet suppose the Doctor so humble as to acknowledge himself much inferiour to Paulus sarpi servita venerunt in point of Church History At least I say to the Reader peruse what he hath said of this Controversie and of the alteration of Church Government in his History of the Council of Trent and his Book of Church Benefices lately translated by Dr. Denton and doubt if you can § 13. And in general I add I. I suppose no man of such reading maketh any doubt of the first 300 years whether any Bishops were made over any Church without the free Election or Consent of the Flocks and the whole Clergy and the approbation of the Ordainers I will not for shame stay to prove this having said so much of it in my first Plea for Peace and Episcopal Church History which are unanswered II. And since the first 300 years it 's so notorious in History that it 's a shame to need proof of it that the Christian Emperours confirmed the Churches in this right and use and for many hundred years after permitted and ordered that Bishops should be chosen by the People Clergy and Synods and when the Peoples Election was infringed the necessity of their consent long continued And it was only in the choice of the five Patriarchs that the Emperours used to meddle and that not always nor at all chusing them alone but commending some one to the People and Clergy to chuse or confirming some one that they had nominated And this held on till Popery sprung up III. And even then the Popes long continued it But 1. They strove specially in Hildebrand's days and
Magistrate may restrain him and refuse to tolerate an intolerable man And yet the people ought not to accept an uncapable man offered by Bishops or Patrons no nor a man next to uncapable when they need and may have much better Many Negatives are safe § 53. He saith The prophane have right to their own souls and to the care of them and therefore are equally concerned with others to chuse Answ It is sad with the Church when they need to be saved from such reasonings of their great Teachers 1. A Right to care for their Souls giveth no man right to chuse men for others Souls to do that which they will not have done for their own The question is whether that man will Communicate with the Church on Christs terms He refuseth and will not else he ought not to be refused And shall he that refuseth Communion chuse one to give it others because he hath a Soul himself Had the neighbour Heathens and Hereticks of old power to chuse Bishops for the Church while they refused to be of the Church themselves Shall he that will not be of the Society chuse for the Society 2. We distinguish between what a man may be forced to and what not He may not be forced to the great gift of Sacramental Remission and Communion because no unwilling person hath right to it But an ignorant person may be forced as a Catechumen or hearer to hear what can be said for his conviction For truth may conquer the unwilling But none on this pretense can hinder the Church from hearing its own Pastors nor force men to be the ordinary Auditors of Mahometans Hereticks or Heathens § 54. p. 331. He again tragically exclaims of me on the old false supposition that I make the people the sole chusers and not only plead for their free Negative Vote though chusing also but not alone was the old way And here tells us of the tumults that would follow Answ 1. So they would if the people chose in France Spain Italy And yet I would they did No humane actions are free from inconveniencies which are not to be cured with a mischief 2. Let him name me ten places that have suffered so deeply by the peoples choice as I can tell him of ten thousand that have done by the choice of Prelates Patrons and Princes and I will confess my errour It was not by the peoples choice that all preaching was put down in Moscovy It is not the people that have this many hundred years chosen all the Popish Bishops Mass-priests c. in Italy and most of the Roman Church even in Spain France Bavaria c. 3. I told him but had no answer that not only the Innes of Court but also Black fryars Aldermanbury and such other places as have chosen their own Teachers have peaceably had as happy a succession of Learned Godly able Pastors as any place in London or in England 4. It 's known by experience that Learning and great worth doth as Light so reveal it self to humane nature that usually most of those that are loth to be holy themselves would have a Saint and an able man 5. Doth he think in his Conscience that all the Patrons in England are liker to be judicious and free from solicitations favour and respect of persons than the majority of the Communicants of such Churches 6. If the Parsons first admit great numbers of profane and wicked men to be Communicants and then tell us how unfit these men are to chuse they do but condemn themselves § 55. p. 333. He tells us we do but say We judge we think c. the things unlawful but for particular arguments to prove them unlawful he finds none Answ If this be true then they that never found our arguments never answered them If it be not true it is not well Then you here and Mr. Falkener Fulwood Durel c. have not yet answered any of our arguments Remember this 2. Though I did not argue but name the things in my first Plea you and others took it for arguing and we ever craved leave to do it 3. Is it true indeed that there are no arguments in our Writings 1660. and 1661. with the Bishops nor any in my Book of Concord or Treatise of Episcopacy nor in my old Disputations of Church-Government nor in any other mens Books these eighteen years I doubt the angry Bishops will think that in my Treatise of Episcopacy there is some sort of Argument and that my Book against Sacril Desertion of the Ministry hath some and that an Apology for our preaching now in the Press hath some But if there be none accuse us of none CHAP. X. Of the Imposed use of the Cross in Baptism and denying Baptism to the refusers § 1. PAge 343. He cometh to our charge against the Church though he never found any Arguments as aforesaid And I. Why doth he silently balk the chief things which I had named will this satisfie Conscience will excusing some things make others lawful II. As to what he saith for the Cross I have so fully answered it twice to Mr. Cheney and once to the Impleader that I am loth to repeat all again In short 1. He saith the Church intends it not for a sign of Immediate dedication Answ 1. What is the Medium 2. What if it were not Immediate 3. Can it be more Immediate than in the very present dedicating act to use the sign and expressing the dedicating signification 4. The words of the Canon are To dedicate them by that badge to his service whose benefits bestowed on them in baptism the name of the Cross doth represent And after the Church of England accounteth it an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to the service of him that dyed on the Cross And the service is named Christianity in practice to fight under his banner c. 2. He saith In baptizing the Minister acts by Authority derived from Christ but at Crossing he speaks in the name of the Church We receive this Child c. Answ 1. It 's meet it should be so that Christ's Sacraments be used by Christ's Authority and mens by mens 2. But I hope this is but a quibble and that notwithstanding the word we the Minister as Christ's Minister and in his name saith we receive this child when even the absolved are to be received by Christ first and then by the Church I will not else aggravate the ill consequences § 2. He before saith Was the Cross a dedicating sign to God or a declarative sign to men Answ The Canon saith expresly twice To dedicate them by this badge to his service And an honourable badge whereby the Infant is dedicated to his Service And the Rubrick which we must subscribe refers us to the Canon for the true sense and reason of the Crossing 2. Is Baptism and the Lords Supper a sign to God or to man It is a sign to man for God God knoweth
I take it to be a wrong to those that I would preserve to extenuate the danger of the snare or poyson on pretence of gentleness to the Writer But I deal with the Cause and desire none to hate the person nor would I diminish the honour due to him for his parts or vertues but rather have all men love and magnifie all the good while they dislike the evil and would save the Reader at as easie a rate to the Writer as I can But that he should not be related to his false or sinful words or deeds is not in my power to effect But though I repent not of necessary truth if I any where mistake or speak more truth than is profitable or in language by sharpness more apt to do hurt than good of this I repent and ask forgiveness of God and man As I do if I speak so short of truth as with Eli to make sin seem smaller than it is And now I hope you will love your own duty of Repentance better than another mans and will not be angry if I seek to help it 1. Do you not perceive that while you paint the Dr. as an incredible raging distracted lyar and praise his repentance for rash words of others that you commit the same rashness your self against him If you cannot see your own face let any impartial Reader be your glass and ask him whether you do not that which you are condemning 2. You seem to vindicate the Book called the Friendly Debate I shall shortly further tell you of somewhat in it to be repented of And if partiality made not repentance a very difficult work you would have no need herein of a Monitor But you may think me partial though I acknowledg your civilities to me I can shew you a Manuscript of one both impartial and truly judicious even the late Judge Hale expressing so great dislike of that Debate and the Eccl. Policy as tending to the injury of Religion it self that he wisheth the Authors would openly profess that they write for themselves and no more so abusively pretend it is for Religion 3. You say in this Picture that If L. du Moulin had that honest zeal in him to which he pretends he would have handled Mr. Baxter as smartly c. Answ There may be other reasons than want of honest zeal But do you not here shew that it is the persons more than his act that offended you in his reproof Could you judge it honest zeal had it been to others pag. 16. 4. You say p. 17. He hath something of the Nonconformists in him and for that reason he spareth him Answ Do not Nonconformists differ from Erastians Did not I write against his opinion of Church-Government And did he not bear 22 years ago when Conformity was not in our Controversies 5. You say of the party that come nearest the doctrine of Calvinists and Puritans though you say you mean such as D. M. your Reader must suppose you mean the Nonconformists that they are the true Causes of all our present evils For the late War was raised by the very best of you c. If you mean as you seem it 's somewhat extraordinary to perswade men to believe this in the same Land and Age that the War was raised in And for one to do this that had the first General of the Horse in the Earl of Essex Army his Patron a few doors from him and the Lord Hollis a Colonel nearer him till lately and the Lord President of his Majesties Privy-Council a Colonel not far off him and many more known Conformists who could all quickly have satisfied him how few Nonconformists were Members of Parliament or Commanders in the Army when the War began and that it was betwnen two parties of Conformists that the Wars began as I have proved against Mr. Hinkley and can fullier do when there is need Which party is most obliged to repentance you may dispute with those that are fit for it But if your intimation be untrue it is of another nature and degree than any of Dr. Moulins I confess one party did in many Parliaments before and in that accuse Bishop Laud and his new followers 1. Of Innovations 2. Of Arminianism 3. Of promoting absolute arbitrary Government against the Subjects Property and Liberty 4. And of promoting Popery But if this party were not Conformists of the Church of England the Bishops Clergy and Gentry were not the Church in Arch-bishop Abbots days before Bishop Laud. As to the Reasons of their accusations and the publishing the Articles for Toleration in order to the Sp. and Fr. Match c. I pass them by But because you may say some such think of me as you do of D. M. for what I say in my search for the Schismaticks I only add 1. That I hope we may transcribe mens own words 2. And may judge that there is some difference between the Bishops that judged the Pope Antichrist c. and those that would have us as the way to unity to obey him as Patriarch of the West and principium unitatis and the first 6 or 8 General Councils and that say our concord must be in obeying unum Collegium Pastorum ruling the whole Church per literas formatas and that say the Roman Church is a true Church but so are none of the Reformed that have not Bishops and a continued successive Ordination by such A Copy of a Letter written by Mr. Lewis Du Moulin to the Worthy Dr. Tho. Coxe With the Drs. Answer occasioned by some Reports that concerned Dr. Lewis Du Moulin Worthy Sir KNowing the natural inclination you have to oblige all men and the perticular experience I have of your unwearied goodness to my person and family did incourage me to write both before and now The occasion of both was the Reports spread abroad of my Father being informed you had made him the object of your Care during his sickness I rejoyced that Providence had ordered it so that a Person of your approved worth and Integrity was concerned about him I shall not trouble you with the Relations Fame has brought into this Country but shall only desire to know how he died Was there any advantage taken of his weakness of body or mind How far did his Reported Recantation extend Reach'd it to any material thing of his Tenets or only in reference to personal Reflections This is what is humbly desired by Honoured Sir Your most Humble and obliged Servant Lewis Du Moulin From my House at Malton in Yorkshire October the 7th 1680. The Drs. Answer to Mr. Lewis Du Moulin Sir I Had not delayed to return an Answer to your first Letter had I known how to direct mine to you which indeed I had forgotten how to do This is therefore to let you know that your Father my honourèd Friend Dr. Du Moulin Dyed as he had Lived a truly pious man a great hater of the Romish Superstition and of so
some excess of kindness to me V. With this Defence against Doctor Stillingfleet I at once pubblish in another Volume An Apology for the Nonconfirmists Preaching with an Answer to a multitude of their Accusers and Reasons to prove that it is the Bishops and Conformists great Duty and Interest to seek their Restoration Which is the most material part of the Confutation of Doctor Stillingfleet who would persuade us that our Preaching is a sin and make us guilty of silencing our selves FINIS Books lately Printed for Nevil Simmons â—â— the Three Cocks at the West and of St. Pauls 1. CHurch-History of the Government of Bishops and their Councils abbreviated Including the Chief part of the Government of Christian Princes and Popes and a true account of the most troubling Controversies and Heresies till the Reformation Written for the use especially of them 1. Who are ignorant or misinformed of the state of the Ancient Churches 2. Who cannot read many and great Volumes 3. Who think that the Universal Church must have one visible Soveraign Personal or Collective Pope or General Councils 4. Who would know whether Patriarchs Diocesans and their Councils have been or must be the Cure of Heresies and Schisms 5. Who would know the truth about the great Heresies which have divided the Christian World especially the Donatists Novatians Arians Macedonians Nestorians Eutychians Monothelites c. 2. A Treatise of Episcopacy Confuting by Scripture Reason and the Churches Testimony that sort of Diocesan Churches Prelacy and Government which casteth out the Primitive Church Species Episcopacy Ministry and Discipline and confoundeth the Christian World by Corruption Usurpation Schism and Persecution Meditated in the Year 1640 when the Et-câ—tera Oath was imposed Written 1671. and cast by Published 1680. by the importunity of our Superiours who demand the Reasons of our Nonconformity 3. A Moral Prognostication 1. What shall befall the Church on Earth till their Concord by the Restitution of their Primitive purity simplicity and Charity 2. How that Restitution is like to be made if ever and what shall befall them thenceforth unto the End in that Golden Age of Love All three by Rich. Baxter 4. Memorabilia or The most Remarkable Passages and Counsels Collected out of the several Declarations and Speeches that have been made by the King his Lord-Chancellors and Keepers and the Speeches of the Honourable House of Commons in Parliament since his Majesties happy Restauration Anno 1660. till the end of the last Parliament 1680. Reduced under four Heads 1. Of the Protestant Religion 2. Of Popery 3. Of Liberty and Property c. 4. Of â—â—rliaments By Edward Cooks of the Middle Temple Esq READER I Must take this opportunity for the avoiding of mistakes to give thee notice that whereas against them that plead for the necessity of an uninterrupted Succession of Episcopal ordination I have in the Preface to my Book for Universal Concord and in the beginning of my Breviate of Church-History said that our Northern English Episcopacy was derived from such as were no Bishops but Scottish Monks and Presbyters and that Aidan and Finan Tromhere Coleman were such lest I be misunderstood I must further explain my meaning viz. 1. The Culdees that were no Bishops first guided the Affairs of Religion in Scotland long before the coming of Palladius 2. These Culdees chose themselves for order sake some few to be as Guides and Governorus to the rest whom Writers called Scotorum Episcopos but were no Bishops in our controverted sense but as an Abbot among Monks and as the Presidents or Principals of Colledges rule those that are of the same office or order with them Nor had they any limited fixed Diocesses 3. And if any will call these Bishops and the question be but de nomine let them call them so and spare not I contend not against them 4. Afterwards Palladius sent from Rome began a higher sort of Bishops But the Culdees still kept up the greater part against him 5. Columbanus his Monastery in the Isle of Hy restored the Culdees strength And the Monks out of that Island were the most prevailing Clergy of Scotland who had no proper Episcopal ordination Or if you will call their ordainers Bishops they were not only ejusdem ordinis with the Presbyters but also not ordained by Bishops themselves but made such by mission from the Monastery and bare election and ordination of Presbyters 6. Out of this famous holy Monastery was Aidan first and Finan after and Tromhere c. and Coleman after sent into Northumberland where they aresaid to be made Bishops And they were the first Bishops that came thither and so had no ordination in England from any Bishops that were there before Nor is there any probability that the Palladian Bishops did ordain them Bishops But that their own order of Senior Monks and Presbyters only ordained them 7. Beda was such a votary to the Church of Rome that his testimony runs more for the Romish interest than most of the Scottish or English Historians of those times yet lib. 3. c. 5. saith of Aidan but that his approbation was in Conventu Seniorum and sic illum ordinantes ad praedicandum miserunt And c. 25. that Finan pro illo gradum Episcopatus a Scottis ordinatus missus acceperat qui in insula Lindisfarnensi secit Ecclesiam Episcopali sedi congruam Quam tamen more Scottorum uno de lapide sed de robore secto totam composuit arundine â—exit Et defuncto Finano qui post ipsum fuerit cum Colmannus in Episcopain sucâ—ederet ipse missus a Scotia c. And the King Oswi himself was taught by the Scots and was of their Language and for their way And Cedda was ordained by the Scots And at a Synod three or four of these kind of Bishops with the King and his Son and Hilda a woman Abbesse were the Company that made it c. 25. And c. 26. Tuda also was ordained by the Scots And c. 4. The Bishops themselves were under the Government of the Abbot juxta exemplum primi Doctoris qui non Episcopus sed Presbyter extitit et Monachus 8. Li. 3. c. 28. he saith that non erat tune ullus excepto Wini in totâ Britania Canoniee ordinatus Episcopus 9. And as there is no word of proof that it was the Palladian Roman Bishops that ordained these Northumbrian Bishops so there is enough to the contrary in that all these foresaid Bishops continued the stiffe enemies of the Roman Power and order which Palladius came to introduce Insomuch that Beda oft mentioneth their utter aversion to the Roman party and that the Brittons and Scots were all of a mind and Daganus and the rest would not so much as eate with the Romanists no nor so much as eat in the same house or Inn with them lib. 2. c. 4. 10. And lastly even that sort of Episcopacy which they took in Northumberland was but Equivocally so called as to that which we dispute about and not Ejusdem Speciei For. 1. They never pretended to a distinct order from the Presbyters 2. They had but one poor Church made of Wood and thatcht with Reeds and no possessions else And from theâ—â—e they went from village to village to instruct convert and pray with the people And that our English Episcopacyâ—eriâ—eth â—eriâ—eth its succession from these Scots and the Brittaineâ— and not frome Rome by Augustine and Palladius I refer the Reader to Mr. Jones and to the Preface before Knox his Church-History Thus much I thought needfull to prevent being misunderstood about the Episcopacy of Aidan 〈◊〉 c. Such an Episcopacy as the Bishop of Hereford pleade th for in his Naked Truth I meet with few that are against any more than that the Colledge of Physicians or Philosophers or Divines have â— President FINIS a The new Church since Bishop Laud's change b Note that the Bishops Book as against me runs upon a mere fiction p. 76. that I traduce him as a Factor for Popery when I had not a word to that purpose yea expresly excepted him by name though I argued against his too neer approach c No such thing but of the Churches within the Empire then d was there no necessary cause till after An. 1200 e So then these Protestant Bishops give the Pope Patriarchal Power and Primacy of Order and as much as the Greeks But 1. They had by Councils of old no Patriarchal Power over other Kingdoms out of the Empire 2. Obedience to the Pope as a Patriarch is against the Oath of Supremacy and on the matter little differeth our case from obeâ—ing him as Pope f So that this Arch-Bishop also was set on the pious design of joyning with the Papists on these terms and may not we have leave to worship God on better terms g That is 1. The Pope is not to govern us arbitrarily but by Canons Which what they are is hardly known 2. And all will be Schismaticks that so obey him not h 1. Thus for union with Rome all Protestants must pass for self made Schismaticks that cannot obey the Pope as Patriarch And doth this tend indeed to Concord It would open Protestants eyes did I but tell you all that is in the Canons which the Pope as our Patriarch must rule us by as these Doctors do desire i 1. If this Doctrine be true no wonder that Mr. Thorndike thought we could not justifie our Reformation till we alter the Oath of Supremacy then we are bound in conscience to a Foreign Jurisdiction 2. I have fully proved many great errors and sins to be decreed by many of the Councils by which the Pope as Patriarch must rule us all 3. Is it any easier to do evil In obedience to a Patriarch than a Pope 4. In my last Book against W. Johnson alias Tenet I have fully confuted all that he saith of the universality of Councils and the Patriarchs power over the Abassines and others without the Empire and shewed they were then all but in one Empire as the Arch-Bishop of Canterbury is in England ☜ Page 22. A vain Writer and malicious if not mad and distracted p. 11. he will magnifie the very worst of men if they be of his mind and vilifie the best if they be of another p. 27. He hath full liberty to vie with the Devil himself in his Calumnies with more such