done more than yet is done And if you think you can or do prove it must none have Christian Communion who think your proof invalid and that you do it worse than Bishop Taylor that maintained hurtless lying § 56. But the other half of the definition of a separatist is they administer Sacraments by other Rules and after a different manner than what the Church requireth Ans 1. Why will you so reproach your Church we do it by no other rule but the Scripture and doth not the Church require that the Scripture be a Rule You know Polydore Virgil and other Papists ordinarily make this signal difference of Protestants and Papists that the Protestants make the Scripture the only Rule of their Religion On which supposition Francis Peron formed his act of disputing against them And are not the Church of England Protestants If you add another rule it followeth not that we have another than you have though you have another besides what we have 2. You say we deny the fact which is evident to all persons and you speak of me Is this true What Sacraments do you mean I never ordained any I never confirmed any I have married very few if those be Sacraments I have baptised no one these twenty years I gave the Lords supper to none for about eighteen years and rarely since as I told you But others do Ans And if they have no better reason to justifie the forsaking of their Ministry than you give well may they go on to do it 3. Do you mean here by Rulers the same as before by Laws or what mean you I suppose it 's the Canon and Liturgy that you mean And if by the Church you mean any thing but the King and Parliament you are unintelligible For the Church hath but two visible essential parts the Regent and the Subject parts And of the Regent only the supream is essential the rest being also subjects and but Integrals And it is a Requiring Church which you mention And so it seemeth that it is but a lay Church And nothing but a Christian Kingdom 4. I have told you that the French and Dutch Churches here administer the Sacraments by another rule than your Liturgy and yet are no Schismaticks 5. And your rule hath many parts It requireth Preaching praying reading the Psalms and two Chapters and delivering baptism and the Lords Supper in Christs words and repeating the Creed the Lords Prayer and the Decalogue And all that I do when I officiate for any man for I have no Church and others do it with whom I converse But if it be omitting any thing else in your rule that maketh a separation what is it I oft hear Conformists omit divers prayers I have seen Dr. Horton give the Lords Supper I think to the greater part that sate I doubt most Parishes separate if every omission make a separatist 6. But thus far you satisfie me that you judge all for separatists that preach without all your Assent consent subscriptions that the Covenant bindeth no man living no not the Parliament men that took it to endeavour any alteration of Church Government that it is not lawful to resist any commissioned by the King without exception and much more such That all are â—â—â—â—ratists that administer not Sacraments according to your rule which pronounceth baptized Infants saved so dying without excepting Atheists Infidels or any and this as undoubted and certain by Gods word which requireth the Minister to refuse Baptism and Christendom where the dedicating Image of the Cross is not submitted to when the Parent or adult judge it an unlawful Sacrament And where Baptism must be denyed to all that will not make Godfathers and Godmothers the Sole Covenanting undertakers for their Children without speaking a Covenanting word themselves And when your rule requireth all Ministers to deny Sacramental Communion to all that scruple kneeling in the reception and yet excommunicateth them and ruineth them for not Communicating when they are rejected And also ipso facto Excommunicate To omit much more such this is your rule which he that swerveth from it is a separist 7. But I had thought that we had not been like those late cavilling Papists that will not distinguish fundamentals from any little points lest it lose them a paultry advantage of abusing men Doth not every good Law and Rule distinguish between Essentials Integrals and Accidents and make more Accidents than are Integrals and Integrals than are Essentials And doth your rule do otherwise If not tell us what parts of your rule are necessary to one and what to the other or you say nothing to resolve the case Is every line and Ceremony Essential to the Church and to each member If not how cometh our omitting a form of Ceremony to cut us off as a separated Church any more than every breach of Law cuts off a man from the Common-wealth Yea if your Church be but a Christian Kingdom do not you cut off all from that Kingdom too that refuse your Forms or Ceremonies or Subscriptions 8. But Sir to be short with you I will yet believe that Christ is the Institutor of the Church and that he hath himself made Laws which are sufficient to be at least the bond of their unity yea for more than Essentials even the Integrals and many Accidents and hath given Laws to regulate all mens Laws that determine of needful undetermined accidents And that no man should be cut off from the Church or taken as separated that breaketh no Law of God yea those that are necessary to Church unity and Communion And that the grand Schismaticks of the world are the Engineers that fabricate needless impossible dividing terms and conditions of unity and Communion § 57. But you tell me that we do the same things in the same manner as the separatists Ergo we are disingenuous for denying your accusation Ans 1. Judge of the fact by what is said 2. We do not say 1. That you are no true Ministers or Churches 2. Nor that it is unlawful to communicate with you Ergo it is not true that we do the same things 3. But it is the External action the whole same that maketh a separatist A Parson in the Ale-house lost his Common prayer book When he came to Church he told them his mishap and only read what was in the Bible Query whether his Flock and he were separatists An old Parson that I was bread under could scarce see but could say most of the Prayers without book He said what he could remember and got a day Labourer one year and a Taylor another to read the Chapters Query Whether we were all separatists § 58. But you undertake to tell the Reason why I am unwilling to confess a separation because we have formerly severely condemned it in others and yet do the same things for which we charged others as guilty of a sinful separation Ans If this be not true it is not well shew
that by the same Rule is meant the Tradition and Custom of the Vniversal Church 10. And some that it is the Canons of the Bishops in General Councils and under them in National or Provincial Councils 11. And some tell us that the Rule of Christian concord is Obedience to the Bishops of all the World or Universal Church who are a College Governing not only divisim per partes in their several Precincts but unitedly as One Regent College ordinarily per literas formas and by General Councils when they sit 12. And some tell us that it is the Law or Will of the Civil Christian Magistrate which is this Rule As to these four last Rules we must put in our Exceptions As to the 9 th the Traditions and Customs then in use were Apostolical Institutions and so are coincident with some of the former But other Traditions and Customs we take not for this Rule And as to the tenth we give Councils though wrongfully called General their due honour as we do to inferiour Councils and every particular Pastor in his place but take not this for the Rule here mentioned And as to the 11th we know of no such Government in being And as to the 12th it was not then existent and therefore could not be that meant in the Text But we take our selves bound to obey Magistrates as we have elsewhere at large explained and professed In short either you think it is a Divine or a Humane Rule or Law which is here meant or both If a Divine we shall not differ from you of any thing unless it be of the meaning of it If a Humane either it is an act of true Power received from God or not If not you will grant us that it obligeth us not as this Rule in question If yea then we agree that we are to obey it So that all that will be useful to our Conviction will be 1. That you prove the Persons authorized to their Office and of our Magistrates there is no doubt 2. And that they have authority to make all the Canons and Laws which you call the Rule And without this your labour is all lost to us § 10. But which of all these it is that you take for the Rule meant in your Text we must conjecture 1. You well say p. 11. It was such a Rule which they very well knew which they had given them before Therefore it was none that was not then in being but to be made by Bishops afterward And p. 14. you seem to include the Canon made Acts 15. whatever the sense of this Text is we willingly also stand to that and to the Holy Ghosts decision that nothing be imposed but necessary things And p. 15. I find you say that the preserving the Peace of the Church and preventing Separation was the great measure according to which the Apostle gave his directions And this is all that I can find of your determination what is that Rule And if Peace be the Rule we all agree with you in declaiming against the violation of it But is there no more in your Application § 11. I remember it is said in the Life of Joh. Bugenhagius Pomeranus the Pastor of the Church in Wittenberge and the Presbyter that ordained the Bishops and Presbyters of Denmark and many other places how much John Frederick the Elector of Saxony was pleased to hear him open the Reasons why Magistrates have power to make Laws but not Pastors armatum 〈◊〉 potestatem politicam authoritate condendi leges non pugnantes cum Decalogo de his traditam se verissimum praeceptum necesse est obedire propter conscientiâ—n sed pastoribus expresse prohiberi condere proprias leges eum dicatur Neâ—o 〈◊〉 arguat in cibo in potu nec posse hanc libertatem ullius creaturae authoritate tolli But I had rather stretch my Obedience to the utmost consistent with Conscience and Obedience to God than speak for any needless Liberty § 12. It is certain that by the same Rule is not meant 1. Any Rule that tied Christians to subscribe or declare that there is nothing in our three Books Liturgy Ordination and Articles contrary to the Word of Godâ— For none of them were then extant nor are they 200 years old 2. Nor any Rule that tied them to any one humane Liturgy which all the Churches iâ— the Nation must agree in For there was none such 3. Nor was it any Rulâ— that imposed on them any dubious unnecessary Opinions Covenants or Practices nor in a word our Conformity or any like it This is easily proved 1. Because the Rule which they were all to wall by was somewhat then existent 2. It was a Divine Rule 3. It was thâ— which all Christians were to have concord in But experience telleth us that all Christians that is that consent to the Essentials of Christianity â—â—â—ver had nor can have their Concord in any of the fore-mentioned Conformity as I have proved in my Book of Concord § 13. We will go therefore no further than your Text for the Terms 〈◊〉 our Agreement and for our Defence against your Accusation Whatâ—â— you will prove to us by any such evidence as should convince a Man of reason 〈◊〉 impartiality to have been THE RVLE which the Apostle did here mean 〈◊〉 bid all that are Christians walk by we earnestly desire to agree thereto Anâ— we will joyn with you against any that refuse it It will be a way more coâ—gruous to your Function and cheaper to your Consciences to condescend 〈◊〉 these Terms and prove to us what this same Rule was than to tell the Magistrates that it is no sin not to endure us § 14. Pag. 16 17 18 19. you come to tell us what Separation it is noâ— which you speak of viz. not of the Separation or distinct Communion of 〈◊〉 Churches from each other c. Answ You know it 's like your self what 〈◊〉 mean by these words if you would have us know it I must crave yoâ— Answer to these Questions Qu. 1. Do you make Separation and distinct Communion the same thing 〈◊〉 divers Qu. 2. What distinction of Communion is it that you mean When there are 〈◊〉 many things which may distinguish 1. Communion in distinct places you take 〈◊〉 for Separation 2. Nor Commnion under distinct Presbyters or Bishops 3. Therefore I suppose neither under distinct Princes or Aristocracies in Cities as such 4. Nor under distinct Laws meerly as such of the same Prince 5. Nor distinct in allowed or indifferent accidents Why any of these should be called Separation I know not unless as the word doth signifie but Diversity or Distance Q. 3. Do you take Separation here in the same sence as before and after or Equivocally If Equivocally why did you not tell us what you here meant besides the difference of Subjects If univocally then Q. 4. Is not the Separation of whole Churches much worse than of single Persons from
Christian Religion For the Christian Religion giveth Rules to all sorts of Christian Societies These are not the usual ways of defining nor give me any true notice of your sence 6. And you make it not intelligible whether by the Rules of the Christian Religion you mean only the Divine Rule and whether you mention it as the uniting Bond or only as a Rule to some humane Rule But though the application look this way yet your words speak no more than what is common to the Churches which you accuse that are united for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion If this will serve those are thus united that take the Bible for their Rule of Order c. But is not this against those Churches that take not the Bible but Canons or other humane Laws for the bound of their Church-Vnion or their Rule If it be uniting for Order and Government according to the Rules of the Christian Religion which maketh a Church let us then try which Societies are so united and let that be the matter of our Dispute § 24. Serm. p. 13. And it is a great mistake to make the Notion of a Church barely to relate to Acts of Worship and consequently that an adequate Notion of a Church is an Assembly for Divine Worship by which means they appropriate the Name of Churches to particular Congregations whereas if this held true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up But if they retain the nature of a Church when they do not meet together for Worship then there is some other Bond that uniteth them and whatever that is it constitutes the Church Ans 1. Did you write this as a Confutation of any body If so you should have told them who are your Adversaries I never met with one to my remembrance that saith the Church is no longer a Church than they are congregate but Mr. Cheney who writeth against my Plea for Peace And so the two first who now write against me write against one another and I must please them both When you so far differ among your selves you should bear with them that less differ from you 2. What mean you by the Notion of a Church which all Men know is an equivocal word Do you mean that a Church hath but one Notion I pray you tell us whether the Notion be the same as it is used Matth. 16. 18. 18. 17. 1 Corinth 11. 18 22. Acts 19. 32 39 40. 1 Crrinth 14. 34. Psalm 26. 5. Ephes 5. 27. 1 Tim. 3. 15. Acts 5. 11. Acts 20. 28. Rev. 2. 12 18. Rom. 16. 5. Phil. 2. 10. Acts 8. 1 3. Eph. 5. 23. Col. 1. 18. Eph. 1. 22. 5. 23. Doth any Man believe that it is in all these Texts taken in the same Notion or sence I am sure I need not ask this of you as to the sence of prophane Authors who use the word for any sort of Concilium coetus concio congregatio convivia as in Lucian Demosthenes Aristotle Thucidides c. 3. If you will pardon me for telling Men in Print so often that a Church is constituted not only for Communion in Worship but also in Doctrine and holy Living I will not ask you why you dissembled this nor why you would intimate the contrary to your Readers Repetition is not the least fault of my Writings and all will not prevent the mis-intimations even of such worthy Men as you Ad nauseam usque I have repeated that the Office of the Ministery standeth in a subordination to the three parts of Christ's Office Prophetical or Teaching Priestly or Worshipping Kingly or Ruling and that a particular Church is associated for the use and benefit of all three conjunctly Were you not willing to take notice of this or not willing that others should take notice of it 4. How many Writings of ours have told the World that we appropriate not the Notion of a Church to a particular Congregation Do not my Books which you cite copiously express the contrary Do we not over and over tell Men that the word Church must be considered as equivocal generical and specifical Do we take the Holy Catholick Church in the Creed for a particular Congregation Worthy Sir this is unworthy dealing whether it be by ignorance negligence rashness or wilfulness We distinguish between Churches of God's Institution and of Man's Invention And of the first sort what Independent is there that holdeth not an Vniversal Church at least besides particular Congregations And of Man's making who can number the sorts that are and may be made 5. Did you ever know Man save such Conformists as he that answered my Plea whether Greek Papist Episcopal Presbyterian Independent or Anabaptist who denieth a Church Bond that uniteth them when the Congregation is dismiss'd All confess that the Union of the pars regens and pars subdita for Church-ends doth make it a Church And who doth not distinguish between the Constitution and Administration the Status and the Exercitium 6. How then could you say If this be true the Church must be dissolved as soon as the Congregation is broken up What shew is there of such a consequence What if we held that the Church were so called barely in relation to Publick Worship doth it follow that this Relation ceaseth as soon as the several Acts of Worship cease Their mutual consent and the union of the VVorshippers Priest and People associated for that use may continue when the Act of VVorship is intermitted May it not continue a School when the Boys go home or play May it not be a Parliament when the House is risen tho it be only for the work of assembled Men that they are related and denominated 7. But Sir do you not confess even in your Iroenicon where you maintain that no Form of Church-Government is of Divine command 1. That God hath commanded that there be Assemblies ordinarily used for his VVorship 2dly And that Pastors are to be the Guides and chief Managers of this VVorship 3dly And that they should be also their Teachers 4thly And that they govern them by their Keys And if all this be true then such Assemblies are of Divine Institution not such as are associated only for VVorship but for Doctrine Worship and holy Living under the Teaching and Conduct of their Pastors If you deny that such Churches as we call Particular are of Divine Institution we have often proved it though few Christians deny it or need any proof And it is so oft repeated in the Books which you cite that I must suppose you know it though you seem to dissemble it that the Definition which I give of such a Church doth make the Terminus to be not the whole Church meeting at one time and place but personal presential Communion in Doctrine VVorship and Holy Conversation as distinct from absent Communion by Delegates or Letters only Your Parish is associated for such
doubt they will by this take you for somewhat worse 2. What doth your National Church differ from a Christian Kingdom which we deny not 3. Do you think there is no other Species of a Church besides that which is Constituted by the Christian Magistrate as Head 1. All the Christian World as far as I can learn by History no considerable part excepted have been in all Ages and to this Day are of another mind And who then is the great Nonconformist and Separatist You or I if this be your mind 2. The Magistracy and Pastoral Office are of different Species Therefore the Churches Constituted by their Regency are of different Species 3. Constantines words have hitherto been commonly received That He and so Christian Kings was Bishop without the Church and the proper Bishop within that is That he was the Governour of the Church by the Sword as the King is of all Scholars Physitians Families c. but not the Governour by the Word and Keys as the King is not a School-Master Physitian or the formal Specifying Governour of School Colledge Family as such Bishop Bilson of Subjection most clearly openeth the difference and I think Christians commonly agree to it between the Office of Governing by the Sword and by the Word even about the Church it self 4. Christ settled immediately the Pastoral Office and did not leave it to Princes to make it And He settled Churches under the Pastors when there were no Christian Princes And when the Emperours became Christians they never took themselves to be the intrinsick Constitutive Rectors of the Churches but Accidental Heads as is aforesaid And all the Councils and their Canons fully shew that the Bishops were still of this mind And our greatest Defenders of the Power of Princes Bilson Andrews Buckâ—ridge Spalatensis c. were of the same mind and ascribe to them no more 5. Else Heathen and Infidel Princes might be Essential to the Church in the Gospel-Notion For they are the Governours of it by the Sword and may possibly by the Counsel of Christians make them as good Laws as many Christian Princes do Julian made no great Change of the Church-Laws But I Labour in vain in proving that there is a Sacerdotal or Clergy-Church-Form or Species for I suppose you cannot deny it and if you do few others will I suppose it is only the National Form which you take to be Constituted by a Lay-Head But few Christians will deny That the Sacerdotal or Clergy-Form of a particular Church is of Divine Institution and that Men have not power to destroy that Form or change the Office there Instituted by the Holy Ghost Though the Forms of Assâ—ciated Churches Diocesan Metropolitan Provincial Patriarchal are judged by very many to be of Humane Invention And what Man may make Man on good Reason may unmake or alter But if you Grant us the Divine Form before mentioned I shall Grant you that a National Church is also of Divine Command if you mean but a Christian Kingdom But when one Form is Denominated from the Pastoral Office related to the Flock and the other from the Magistrates Office What hath a Man that can understand the State of the Controversy to do here but to shew what is the Pastoral Office towards the Church and what is the Magistrates For sure they are not the same And yet because that it is the Pastoral Form which the word Church denoteth in the strict and usual Christian Sense Our Sovereignes in England to avoid the Papists Exceptions have forsaken the Title of Head of the Church lest they should seem to claim a Constitutive Headship of a Church strictly taken and use only the Term Governour Even as Christ is said by St. Paul Eph. 1. to be Head over all things To the Church Over and To much differ And I yet see not why on the same Reason that we call a Christian Kingdom or Republick a National Church we may not 〈◊〉 call Loâ—don York c. a City-Church as Headed by the Mayor as the Christian Magistrate and so talk of Provincial Consular and Proconsular Churches Monarchical Aristocratical Democratical Churches and make all the Controversies which Church-Form is best as Politicks do what Form of a Common-Wealth is best And thus they that chide the Independents for making the People Governours of their little Congregations which I think yet most of them disclaim do this way quite exceed them in Popularity and in Democraties will make the People Governours of all the Churches even National including the particulars For I suppose they will not say that Democratical Civil Government is unlawful And whereas Cyprian saith Vbi Episcopus ibi Ecclesia you will say Where the Mayor or Bayliffe is there is the Church But I trow the Bishop of London believeth that there is another sort of London-Church-Form besides my Lord Mayors Relation to them But what abundance of Church-Forms Supream and Subordinate may diversity of Magistracy make § 29. Sermon p. 19. I do not intend to speak of the Terms upon which Persons are to be admitted among us to the Exercise of the function of the Ministry but of the Terms of Lay-Communion i. e. those which are necessary for Persons to joyn in our Prayers and Sacraments and other Offices of Divine Worship Answ 1. But your work would have been done more effectually if you had begun at the part which you intend not to speak of I suppose it is not for want of Charity nor Concern that you intend it not and therefore suppose that somebody else will do it at last I have heard of some above your order that could better spare the Nonconforming Ministers than the People and said plainly that they increased the Impositions because they could do better without us than with us And some have said If this will not cast them out more shall do it I take it for granted that this pretermitted part of your Work is indeed the All that you have to do in the Works of Accusing and Afflicting the Nonconformists and till this be done the rest of your Accusations will confute themselves and I doubt not but it will be attempted and if it be truly and satisfactory I will give you thanks 2. Your Term of Lay-Communion remembreth me that if as you seem you Essentiate your Church of England by a Lay-Ruler and his Laws viz. the King and the Laws made by him for Religious Government the People that you accuse are no Separatists though they Separate from the Diocesanes because they hold this Lay-Communion that is though they are not perfectly Obedient they are Subjects of the Lay-Governour and so Members of the Kingdom which is the National-Church 3. And as to your Lay-Communion here spoken of So far as it is Lawful where you have Preach'd or Written for it once I think I have done it many times I shall be far from Contradicting you in that § 30. Sermon p. 20. I will not say there
that it is lawful for such to use more suitable helps though Men forbid it A Soul is precious God Worketh by Means and according to the suitableness of Means That agreeth not to some which others can make shift with Two or Three words from a Conformest that saith God can Bless the weakest Means to you or the Fault is in your self will not serve instead of needful Helps The King or Bishop have not Authority to Tie a Sick Man to Eat that which he cannot Digest or Hurteth him Every Man is neerliest concerned for his own Soul and most Entrusted with it Parish-Order it self is but a humane alterable Circumstance which I am not bound to observe at the hazard of my Edification and Salvation XXVII What if the Magistrate grant a Toleration of divers Modes of Worship as the French and Dutch Churches are here Tolerated and many in Holland and in many other Countries Are these separating Schismaticks that differ from each other If so it is not because they disobey the Magistrate for he Tolerateth them all If not then meer diversity of Modes of Worship maketh not Schismaticks XXVIII If it be no true Political Church in the strict sense as an Organized Society which hath not true Authorized Pastors and if any Parish have either Vncapable Persons or such as were never Consented to by the Flocks and so have no True Pastor and if the Bishops hold That Parishes are not proper Political Churches but parts of Churches having no Pastors that have the Power of the Keyes or the whole Essence of the Pastoral Office but only Half-Pastors that want an Essential Part of the Power If on any such Account any Parishes are no true Pastoral Churches Qu. Whether to Separate from such a Parish be to Separate from a Church in the sense in question XXIX The mutual Condemnations in the times of the Novations Donatists Nestorians Evtychians Monothelites Phantasiasts Image-Patrons c. tell the World how needful mutual forbearance is to prevent worse Divisions and Confusions And the Papists take themselves to be all of one Church though they differ even in Doctrines of Morality as dangerously as the Jansenists against the Jesuits have shewed and though many Sects and Orders be permitted to Live and Worship God with very great diversity in their several sorts of Monasteries Why then should the little differences of our questioned Assemblies be thought to be so great as maketh us not to be of one Church XXX Some good Christians think That though an undisciplined Church may be Communicated with occasionally yea and constantly while there is a hopeful Tryal of its Reformation yet when there is no hope after Patient Tâ—yal a better Course and Communion should be chosen where it may be had And they think that Multitudes whom they know to be prophane Swearers Cursers Drunkards Fornicators Haters of serious Piety Hobbists Infidels Atheists Sadduces c. are continued in the Church of England And they say they scarce ever heard one Man of all these Excommunicated nor one Man of them all ever brought to Publick Confession and Repentance And they think Lay Chancellours having not rightfully the Power of the Keys there is no ordinary Means of hopeful Reformation and Exercise of Discipline especially the Largeness of the Diocesses making it impossible to be used to One of an Hundred that according to the Law of Christ it should be used on And they think That the Church-Discipline is not only None as to the Right Use and made Impossible but worse than None while it is used most to Excommunicate from Christ's Church the True and Conscionable Members of Christ that dare not Conform and so to lead to their Imprisonment and utter Ruin And they think That no Man hath true Authority to confine them to such an Undisciplined and Illdisciplined Church and forbid them the Use of better where Christ's Discipline may be used Whether these Men be in the Right or in the Wrong if the Matter of Fact be true I should desire rather the Reformation of such a Church than the Reproach or Afflicting of Men as Separatists and Schismaticks that choose another sort of Communion as to their more Ordinary Practise not denying this to be a true Diseased Church And so much in these Thirty Instances about that which I think deserveth not the Reproach of any dangerous Separation I told you Thirty Instances also of Unlawful Separation which I named And now you may judge whether you spake to Edification when you said That the People are Condemned by their own Teachers without telling whom and for what and how far they Condemn them and how far not § 34. And Did you think the Consequence good That because we think it Lawful to Hear you yea and to many a Duty therefore we Condemn them for Hearing any one else that Conformeth not As if they that have Communion with your Diocesan-Church must have Communion with no other So far am I from your Opinion that I take it to be wofully Separating and Schismatical And will never be a Member of a Particular Church which will forbid me Communion with all others that differ from them yea that doth not hold its Communion in Unity with all the True Christian Churches on Earth Though a Schismatical Disputer for Prelacy tells me That though I Communicate with the Church of England I am a Schismatick for Communicating with Nonconformists who saith he are Schismaticks But he that will Communicate with no Church that hath any Guilt of Schism when the Christian VVorld is broken into so many Sects I doubt will be the greatest Schismatick and will Communicate with few on Earth And as Smith Baptized himself not liking any other Baptism this Man may become a Church to himself And indeed the word Condemn them sounds Harsh when it signifieth no more than that we Judge them to be Mistaken and Culpable If I Condemn every Man or every Church which I judge to be Sinners I must Condemn all Mankind I use not so harsh a Phrase of your Self as to say I Condemn You When yet I Judge your Book to be more Schismatical than the Meetings of most that I am acquainted with which you Accuse § 35. But yet your Mistake is Greater than I have hitherto mentioned I know not many if any that use to Hear Me who Separate from You Many of them are Episcopal and for your Liturgy and Ceremonies I think most of them go to the Parish-Churches and few if any that I know do deny it to be Lawful How then can you prove it True that we Condemn them What is it for Is it because they neither Separate from the Conformists or Nonconformists This is it that we Exhort them to It was an ill Slip to put our Condemning them for Commending them But a fair Exposition will make it Lawful § 36. But you say How they can preach lawfully to a people that commit a fault in hearing them I do not
Four or Five and then say Vnanimously and this because they offer to Subscribe the Doctrine of the Thirty Nine Articles And yet I suppose you know that they more Unanimously dissent from the Doctrinal Article in the Liturgy of Baptized Infants certain undoubted Salvation without Exception and some of them to the Doctrinal Damnation of all Condemned in Athanasius Creed And some of your selves as well as Mr. Humphrey could wish the Article against Free-will and that which Damneth all the Heathens and some others had been otherwise than they are § 40. They generally yield that our Parochial Churches are true Churches and it is with these that Communion is required Say you so 1. The Diocesans are little beholden to you if this be all Do you require no Communion with them 2. I think I shall shew you anon that you take your Parishes for no true Churches your self At least your chief Brethren do not who make them but Parts of a Church the Diocesan being the lowest proper Church 3. Are you sure that the Independents take your Parishes for true Churches I cannot tell But I know John Goodwin and Mr. Brown have Writ to the Contrary 4. And for my self how oft have I told you that I distinguish and take those for true Churches that have true Pastors but that is because I judge of their office by Gods Word and not by the Rule which depriveth them of an essential part of the Office of a Pastor of a true Church But I take those for no true Churches that have 1. Men uncapable of the Pastoral office 2. Or not truly called to it 3. Or that deny themselves to have the power essential to a Pastor Such Congregations I can joyn with as Chappels or Oratories But they are not Churches of the political organized from which we speak of as wanting an essential part § 41. Next you tell men what I said in print of our Conclusion that communion with you was lawful Ans This is true and when said we otherwise Dr. Manton Dr. Bates Dr. Jacomb Mr. Poole and others were there I told you before how far lawful § 42. Serm. p. 22. Who could have Imagined but they should have all joyned with us in what themselves judged to be lawful and in many Cases a duty But instead of this we have rather since that time found them more inclinable to courses of separation c. Ans If this be not true I take it not for sinless Since that time 1. Mr. Pool Mr. Humphery my self and others that took our selves to be no Paâ—â—ors to any particular Church have usually joyned in your assemblies and I usually keep to my Parish-Church 2. Since that time in a Treaty set on foot by the Lord-keeper Bridgman we agreed in terminis with Bishop Wilkins and Dr. Burton and Judge Hale drew up our Agreement into the form of an Act. 3. Since that time at your own motion we treated with honest Dr. Tillotson and you and the same men and more consented to the form and words of an agreeing Act and you both seemed to consent 4. Where you read my words you might have read the Reason why no more Communicated with you And it is not like a lover of Truth to dissemble them 1. I told you that even at the present new heats arising against Dissenters we thought it our duty till they were over to forbear a lawful thing which was like to occasion the sufferings of such as in that were not satisfied as we were Marriage is lawful But if it be not necessary one may forbear it if it would ruine another though the Bishop command it him 2. I told you that the Oxford Act of confinement came out when we were intending to come to your Churches and then had we been seen there in the City or Corporations we had been sent to Jayle but many in the Countries came to your Churches This is your Cathedrall Justice The Law is come to Church in London c. and you shall go to Jayle six Months And if we do not such as you tell the World that we are Separatists 3. I told you men cannot preach to others and hear you both at once Must we repeat these things as oft as you accuse us § 43. In the charge are joyned Dr. Owen and my self my error is p. 24. Serm. that to devise new Species of Churches beyond Parochial or Congregational without Gods authority and to impose them on the world yea in his name and call all dissenters Schismaticks is a far worse usurpation than to make or impose new Ceremonies or Liturgies Ans A man would think that this doctrine should justifie it self and confute the Accuser 1. Will you own your Churches de Specie to be new and yet appeal to antiquity 2. Will you own them to be devised without Gods authority and yet to be preferred to those that he instituted 3. Will you own that yet they may in his name be imposed on the World 4. And will you own that for these dissenters may be called Schismaticks 5. And is not this a worse usurpation than to make new Ceremonies If you will plead for so much presumption profanation of Gods Name usurpation uncharitableness and Schism I will leave you to fight against the Light and not labour in vain in a needless confutation 2. But Sir you should have told your Reader the full truth 1. That I never denied but largely asserted the Magistrates power of the Sword over all persons and causes Ecclesiastical much less Christian Kingdoms or Cities de re 2. And that I maintained that Magistrates make officers to judge of the Circa sacra or undetermined accidents of Religion 3. And if you will equivocally call these Churches I quarrel not de nomine 4. Nor yet at the thing or name of the Association of many Churches for Concord 5. But I say in the Page cited by you that as humane forms should not be pretended falsly to be Divine so neither have they authority against those that are Divine to change them and destroy their priviledges Unless you will fight for man against God you must reverse this Accusation § 44. As to your case of the extent of the first Churches I have so much to say of it elsewhere if God will that I shall not here stay on so short a touch Only you put me to repeat If God make families and men make Cities do but confess the different efficients and usurp not a power to destroy the power instituted by God and we shall not much differ § 45. You greatly strengthen my Cause by the testimony of so well Read a man Serm. 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
the Clergy tell them it is for gain and they that have one two three or more perferments reproach them as covetous that will rather beg than sin or famish yet your Mr. Hickeringil on the contrary proclaimeth how little they get Were it my case as it is very many Non-conformists to be in other mens debts and have nothing to pay house rent for cloaths for bread c. and to have Wife and many Children to pacifie and to live on bread and water or little more and be offered plenty if I would but do that which I take to be the hazard of my Soul I should be sensible of the temptation 2. And alas all this is nothing to the suffering of thousands of Souls to perish for lack of knowledge whose case it is lawful to compassion and lament 3. And nature maketh it lawful to feel when one is hurt and to confess that feeling 4. And methinks if Julian that abuseth the Christians should say your Master bid you turn the other Check his scorn would but aggravate his Sin Patience is our duty But if they call us to it who Preach and Print and call out for the Execution of the Laws against us as many of the most eminent of the Clergy have long done as you said in another case It will look but odly To preach to the Parliament to put Fire to the Faggot to accuse the King for his Licences and Clemency to tell the Magistrates and the World that our Schisms are because they execute not the Laws even the Laws that fine us forty poâ—nd a Sermon and lay us in the Common Gaol with Malefactors and banish us from Cities and Corporations I say for these men to say complain not is a smart accusation of themselves For from good men good is to be expected but if I meet with Gentlemen on the road that take away my Mony clothes and horse and wound me and tell me how much I am beholden to them because they did not cut my throat it 's lawful to know what they are though I must be patient And I told you before when you talk of being made a Sacrifice if a few despised men censure you while you have all your Honour Reputation Riches and many preferments to arm you against their thoughts and breath methinks sheweth that this Counsel is as seasonable to your self as to the suffering Non-conformists § 74. Serm. 54. Where are the Priscillians that have been put to death by their instigation What do such insinuations mean but that our Bishops are the followers of Ithacius and Idacius in their cruelty and they of the good and meek Bishop St. Martin who refused communion with them on that account If men entertain such kind thoughts of themselves and such hard thoughts of their Superiours whatever they plead for they have no inclination to Peace Answ 1. That is to your Terms of Peace and you being Judge 2. Knowledg is oft constrained It is no sin to know History much less Publick matter of present fact and least of all that which we see and feel Is it a sin to know when a man is in prison or when his goods or books are distrained c I the rather speak to this because a Reverend Bishop tells me also of this wrong as if those Bishops case were unlike to his and citeth the words of the Historian that mentioneth the suffering of the Churches in Spain on that account as if Maximus had but taken advantage of the Bishops spleen to Tyrannize and prey upon the Churches I desire not to make any men seem worse then they are nor causelesly to open the faults of any I profess to the world that it is not in an impatient aggravating of any sufferings of my own which are small that I write this but as the true stating of the case between us If the matter of fact be not truly stated the matter of right cannot be well determined I hate false History 1. It is agreed on by many of the best Historians of that Age beside Beda that Maximus wanted nothing but a good Title to make him one of the best of Emperours That he was said to be made Emperour by the British Souldiers against his will and being once in could not go back His usurpation was wicked but a way too common in the Empire He was of a pious life and great zeal for the Bishops and the Orthodox Religion what he did was to please the Bishops and to suppress Heresie and Schisme And it 's like enough he thought by their friendship to strengthen himself He rescued Ambrose at Milan from the Arrians and by his threats deterred Valentinian provoked by his Wife from persecuting him and so preserved the Church of Milan and many others 2 I read not of any of the Bishops in all his Countreys that complyed not with this Usurper save Martin Theognostus and Ambrose that was preserved by him 3. It was not Ithacius and Idacius only but all the Synod of the Bishops that were guilty and that Martin separated from 4. The Priscillians were down-right Gnosticks and so are not the Nonconformists who you say agree with you in Doctrine c. 5. It is but the death of Priscillian and a very few more that the Bishops were said to have procured and they were ashamed of it when they had done and denyed that it was their doing You force me for Historical Verity to tell you that they did not silence about 2000 Ministers which is worse than many bodily afflictions nor did they desire Maximus to make a Law that all that did not such things as ours should be ruined by Fines Imprisoned c. Make them not worse than they were Our Quakers are much like the Priscillianists Had it been but twice as many of them that had dyed in prison as were put to death of the Priscillianists the cases had not been much unlike But Mr. Thompson that dyed in Prison at Bristol Mr. Field that dyed in Prison here Mr. Hughes that in Prison catcht his mortal sickness Mr. Joseph Allen that had the same Lot and many more such were none of them like the Priscillianists but men of whom I and such as I come far short 6. The great mischief that those Bishops did was by suspecting men that Fasted and Prayed much to be Priscillians they brought reproach by unjust suspicions in all Countreys on the most strict Religious men and Martin was called by them a Priscillianist for being against the Bishops Persecution of them Let not me but publick knowledge here make the comparison How small was this reproach for extent and continuance in comparison of that which by occasion of Non-conformity hath been cast on men in England My memory serveth me from 1623 or 24 Commonly in the Countreys if a man did but pray in his family and spend the Lords day in Religious Exercises reading the Scripture or repeating a Sermon or reading a good book or singing a