of Communion imposed putteth us out of capacity to assemble with our Brethren in publick These I now but propose but intend to dispute them as they fall in in the Doctor 's Discourse SECT II. Of Parochial Churches IN the beginning of this third Part the Reverend Author reduceth the Pleas for Separation to Four Heads 1. Such as relate to the constitution of our Church 2. To the Terms of Communion with it 3. To the Consciences of Dissenters 4. To the parity of Reason as to our Separation from Rome Under the First he ranketh 1. That the Parish Churches are not of Christ's Institution 2. That Diocesan Churches are unlawful 3. That the National Church hath no Foundation 4. That the People are deprived of their Rights in the choice of their Pastors About these Four last mentioned he spendeth the far greatest part of this third part of his Book and a very small part of it upon the Second Head which is that which he knoweth his Antagonists do most generally insist on and lay most weight on but it is easiest going over the Hedge where it is lowest Sect. 2. He beginneth with Parochial Churches because it is Separation from those that is most Conspicuous He saith the Non-conformists at first kept Communion with them I have before disproved the Truth of this and also given reasons why the practice of them who did so is not binding to us He saith Since the Congregational way prevailed in England the present Dissenters are generally fallen into it at least so far as concerns Communion with our Parochial Churches Ans. There was a withdrawing from the Parochial Churches because of unlawful Terms of Communion before the present Congregational way was either known or prevailed and to say that Dissenters are generally fallen into the Congregational way I suppose that he meaneth by it is a mistake it is true indeed the restraint he will be angry if I say Persecution that they are under maketh Presbyterian Meetings de facto in many places Independant because they cannot associate for Discipline but we have not quitted our principles for that Sect. 3. I do not Interpose in his Contests with Dr. O. about the Parochial Churches in England being true Churches or about Dr. O's reasons for separating from them But I cannot pass our Reverend Authors Ingenuity in acknowledging p. 221. That Tyranny over Mens Consciences is a good Ground of Separation which is our great Plea for withdrawing from their Assemblies They impose on us Terms of Communion that they can pretend to no other warrant for but their own Fancy and Will and they exclude us because we cannot yield to them If this be not Tyranny over the Consciences of Men let any unbyassed Person judge and if it be so judged to be we have good Ground for Separation by the Dr's own confession Sect. 4. Our Author Sect. 2. maintaineth a long debate with Dr. O. about this Question whether one Church is that which ordinarily assembleth in one place or divers assemblies that meet ordinarily in divers places for worship be to be reckoâ—ed divers Churches This Question is stiffly debated on both sides between the Congregational and Episcopal Brethren the reason of their so much concern in it is the one ascribeth all Church Power to every Congregation that ordinarily meeteth for worship and so maketh that the highest ruling Church The other placeth ruling Church-power only in the Bishop and so maketh a Diocesan Church to be the lowest ruling Church The Presbyterians go a middle way they stand not on the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 whether a Congregation should be called a Church or only the Combination of more Congregations for the Exercise of Discipline they find the word used both ways in Scripture and the Word it self 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 signifieth any Convention Civil or Religious as 1 Cor. 1. 2. all the Christians in Corinth with their Officers are called the Church and yet 1 Cor. 14. 34. it is supposed that there were several Meetings among them ordinarily that might bear each of them that name of Church When the Apostle forbiddeth that their Women should speak in the Churches 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 he must mean the Churches in Corinth for it is not to be thought that he would particularly have mentioned their Women 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 if he had not meant the Churches of Corinth where they were likest to usurp that Authority The Dr. saith p. 235. That it doth not once fail that where Churches are spoken of in the Plural Number they are the Churches of a Province Here it faileth Sect. 5. But leaving the Word let us understand the thing which I shall set down in a few Assertions 1. All visible Christians are Members of one Great Body whereof Christ is the head to wit his Vniversal Church which if it could so meet together as to be taught and ruled ordinarily by the same Officers there needed be no distinction of Churches in the World. And it is probable it was so in the beginning of the Gospel till the encrease of Believers made it needful to divide into several Companiâ—s that might be ordinarily taught and ruled by their several Officers 2. The several Companies of Believers with their several Officers each of which in Scripture-sence may be called a Church are to be such as may commonly meet together in one place for partaking of God's Ordinances We read of the Apostles ordaining Elders in every City 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 sure then they had respect to the conveniences of Peoples living together that so they might usually meet together 3. These single Congregations being furnished with one or more Pastors and Elders have ruling Power within themselves for Christ hath given ruling power to all the Pastors and Elders and not placed it single in a Diocesan Bishop for at Philippi Phil. 2. 1. all Church-Officers are divided into Bishops and Deacons a plurality of which were in that Church tho' in one City where our Brethren acknowledge that more Diocesans than one could not be 4. The Church power in single Congregations is not Independant but is to be subordinate to the power of them associate together This may be gathered from the Churches in Corinth being there also called a Church If there were not divers religious Assemblies ordinarily they could not be called Churches if they were not Associate they could not be called a Church and wherein they could be Assâ—ciate except in the Exercise of Government is not easy to guess 5. The Association of Churches for Government may be divers as their Convenience of meeting together for that end giveth them opportunity Hence particular Assemblies lesser and greater Associations have their Congregational Classical Provincial and National Presbyteries or Assemblies for the Government of the Church the Lesser in Subordination to the Greater And if Oecumenical Synods could as conveniently and duly assemble all the rest should be subordinate to them seeing every one of them should
necessity of Separation Ans. 1. The Dr. then maketh no difference between a Scruple that hath ground for it and one that hath none If he can make our Scruple appear to be groundless as he confesseth theirs to be he hath advantage against us Ans. 2. Is there no difference between having probable grounds for a Scruple and having no such grounds Is there any comparison between scrupling at using Religious Ceremonies that have no warrant in the word but are in general at least condemned in it and scrupling at some pretended Corruptions that no Scripture Condemneth Ans. 3. If the Dr's reasoning be good either we must bear with none that scruple unless we scruple the same thing Or we must bear with all that Scruple The first of these excludeth all Christian forbearance the last he will not alledge Ans. 4. He mentioneth Impositions as to Order and Discipline only that we may seem Imposers as well as his party is that is unreasonable not only because we can shew Christ's Laws for our Order and Discipline which he will not pretend to shew for the Ceremonies But also because we can bear with sober and faithful Brethren that cannot approve of all that we do which his Party will not Sect. 20. He mistaketh the Case when he insinuateth That we have no more but scruple of Conscience to plead The Dr. should not have alledged this till he or some of his party had answered all our Reasons of Scrupling in many Books neither touched by him or any other But now he will Knock down our cause with one blow He saith he put the Case as clear as possible to prevent all Subterfuges and slight Evasions He supposeth five scrupling Parties one at the Liturgy a Second at the Cross and Kneelling a Third at wrong gathered Churches a Fourth at Infant Baptism a Fifth at Preaching by set Forms and being stinted by an Hour-glass And he saith the Nature of the Case doth not vary according to these If this be the Dr's Herculean Argument we shall not need to fear his Strength so much as before Surely the Learned Dr's parts could let him see more Reason to bear with sober and intelligent men who dare not join with a Church in worshipping God by Religious Ceremonies not instituted by Christ than with Fantastick Quakers who cast off God's Ordinances because of an Hour-glass but that his prejudice doth in this darken his understanding But the Tendency of his Discourse seemeth to be either Church-Authority must lead us Blind-fold so as we must scruple nothing imposed or neither Scripture nor Reason shall limit our Fancy but we may scruple what we will. He saith well p. 76. and the Non-conformists before him had said it If they alledge Grounds to justifie themselves they must do it ex natura rei and not from the meer errour or mistake of Conscience We will most willingly join issue with him on this Condition provided the natura rei may be judged by Scripture as all the Worship of God should be If he can prove the Ceremonies that we scruple to be such as we may use without Sin or if we prove not the contrary let him call us as vile Separatists as he pleaseth If the Dr. had pleased at first to hang the matter on this Pin and not to have filled his Book with so many Citations to strengthen his Cause with Humane Authority he might have saved both himself and me all this labour that hitherto we have been at It is no great commendation either of the wisdom or of the sobriety of his Church that he saith Shâ— hath as much occasion cause he should have said to judge their the Presbyterians scruples unreasonable as they do those of the Quakers What followeth about occasional communion is answered above That which he citeth out of Mr. A. of the Assemby's being transported in the heat of Dispute is not so derogatory from that venerable Meeting as he would make it It is rare to find it otherwise with sinful men How many things did thus slip from the Pens of several of the Fathers that the Dr. will not approve But we do not hereby give up the Cause to the dissenting Brethren nor forsake the Assemblies Principles it is one thing not to approve all that men say and another thing to condemn the Cause that they plead for Sect. 21. Our Author doth next undertake Sect. 17. to shew how we have deserted the Principles of the old Non-conformists as to private Persons reforming Church-Discipline setting up new Churches and the preaching of Ministers when silenced by the Laws For the setting up of Churches and Discipline he citeth several Non-conformists against it without the Magistrate p. 78 79 80 81 82. To all which I answer That two things are expresly in these Citations that make what they condemned not to reach our Case For 1. They condemn private mens endeavouring a publick Reformation that belonging to the Magistrate so it is thrice expressed p. 81. out of Confut. of the Brownists Now we meddle not with a publick Reformation otherwise than by our Prayers and Advice as we have occasion which is there also expresly allowed by them but content our selves to serve God privately when we cannot do it publickly without Sin. To this same purpose is that which is cited out of Giffard p. 79. That tho' every one ought to keep a good Conscience yet no private Persons are to take on them publick Authority to reform If we do so blame us for it 2. These Non-conformists all along speak of private Persons reforming the Discipline of the Church Now what is done among us of that kind is done by Ministers who though in the State they are private persons and therefore are not to meddle with matters of that concern Yet in the Church they are publick persons and have Authority from God to dispense his Ordinances But I do not by what I have said intend to homologate all that the Dr. citeth out of these Non-conformists several things they assert that cannot well be defended but I shall not digress so far as to particularize them Sect. 22. I shall only say That had this Principle of not reforming the Ordinances of Christ by People among themselves till the Magistrate gave countenance taken alwaies place in the World not only Christianity had not come in the place of Judâ—ism but Arrianism had extinguished the Orthodox Profession Have we not Examples of People who were under Arian Bishops setting up new Bishops over themselves in Epiphan Haeres 73 Doth not Hilary exhort the People to separate from Auxentius their Arian Bishop adversus Arianos when yet there was no Orthodox Magistrate to countenance these things Yea had this Principle obtained there had been no Reformation from Popery in most places where now through the Lord's mercy it is Say not that our reforming of Worship and Discipline is not in things of that moment for tho' that be true yet it is not of
either so undervalue Conscience or reflect on the worthy Persons that answered his Sermon If we cannot shew plain and evident Reasons for what we say as he requireth we refuse not causa cadere Sect. 31. He telleth a very formal Story p. 51 52. of the Effects of his Sermon of the mimick Gestures of the Non-conformists when it was spoken of the Truth of which History tho' I doubt I cannot disprove It neither was worth his writing nor my confuting He thinketh it lay at bottom of many mens Stomachs that he did not perswade the Church of England to the Dissenters Who did ever require that We pretend to no Authority over Her if she would have condescended to us for Peace sake which that Party talk so much of to forbear imposing her unnecessary things which we judge unlawful that should have satisfied us But he thinks p. 53. it had been unseasonable to speak of Alteration of Laws before Magistrates who are tied to the Laws that such Alteration is one of the weightiest things Ans. Supposing as he there saith his private Opinion for Abatements there was no need of proposing the Alteration of Established Laws but the exposing of them that were under the lash of Inconvenient Laws may well be forborn before the Executors of these Laws by a man that thinketh that Abatement should be made of the rigour of these Laws I do not think as he doth that the alteration of every Established Law is a Matter of such weight as any thing that can be taken into consideration provided the consideration about it be by such as have Power to alter it What is more common than altering of Laws when they are found inconvenient Our first Reformers thought not so under Edward 6. The Liturgy and the Law for it was altered when excepted against by Mr. Calvin abroad and some Zealots so the Historian speaks at home Full. Chur. Hist. 6 7. p. 386. Why may not this be done now when Dissatisâ—action is become more universal But it is a supposition that I can give no account of that the Laws against Non-conformity for of these his Discourse must be understood if it be at all to the purpose should be so looked on as that they concern the preservation of the Church and Religion That Church and Religion must stand on a tottering Foundation that cannot be preserved if those things be laid aside which are acknowledged to be indifferent But thus it is to dote on Mens Inventions it is ordinary to equal if not preferr them to Christ's Institution Mark 7. 13. Mat. 15. 6. Qui amat ranam ranam putat esse Dianam Sect. 32. But the Dr. is not content not to advise the altering of these Laws where it had not been very pertinent to propose it but he bringeth Reasons able as he thinketh to preponderate all the Considerations that any might use for changing them these Reasons are in number Six the 1. is The Impossibility of satisfying all Dissenters Must therefore none be satisfied because all cannot Some will be satisfied if you will but forbear imposing what God hath not commanded Others will not be satisfied unless you forbear also some of Christ's Institutions such as Infant Baptism is it reason to neglect the doing the one of these for Peace and Unity because you cannot do the other The 2. is The Vncertainty of gaining any considerable number by Relaxations If any man look on this as uncertain it must be either because he knoweth not what we scruple at or because he thinketh us resolved to dissent without reason when the reason of our Dissent is removed but I hope the Dr. is neither so ignorant nor so uncharitable He may be well assured that by relaxing the Imposition of humane Ceremonies all the Presbyterians shall be gained to join in worshipping of God with the present Church and I hope he will not say that they are no considerable number in England His 3. Reason is The difficulty of keeping Factions out of the Church considering the ungovernableness of some mens Tempers and Principles Answ. If the Discipline that Christ hath instituted be duly exercised in the Church that will either make men governable yea actually govern them or it will exclude them out of the Church and so Factions shall cease in the Church But it is a strange piece of Ecclesiastical Policy on supposition that some will prove ungovernable to obtain the making of Civil Laws for imposing those things on mens Consciences which the Imposers count need nots and they on whom they are imposed know them to be unlawful This is the way to make them ungovernable in reference to these particular Impositions who would tamely submit to any Yoke that is not contrary to that of Christ. But it seems the Dr. looketh on all that scruple at human Ceremonies as ungovernable Persons And we rationally think that his Party are resolved that we shall either be governed by their Will not by the Word of God or they will take the most effectual ways that they can to keep us out of their Church I confess Conscience is an ungovernable thing except by the Laws of Christ but it is much the Strain of some of his Party I am confident the Reverend Dr. doth not mean so ill to ridicule and cry down Conscience in private persons that they may be governed by the publick Conscience a Soloecism in Divinity never heard of before i.e. The Will of the Superiours the thing to wit Blind Obedience is an old Popish Tool to enslave Consciences but such an express affronting of Conscience God's Deputy in the Soul is a new Invention that this Age is honoured with Sect. 33. His 4. Reason is The danger of breaking all in pieces by a Toleration Ans. Toleration is both commanded in Scripture Rom. 14. 1. Eph. 4. 2 3. In this last place it is joined with endeavouring after Unity so far is it from being the way to break all in pieces as the Dr. thinketh It is also condemned Rev. 2. 2 20. wherefore it should not have been so generally censured as a Church-ruining thing Beside Toleration is not that which we plead for in the first place but that the things that grieve our Consciences may be removed that so we may join with you in worshipping God in his own way that we may need no Toleration but if that cannot be obtained our next desire is that we may be suffered to worship God in that way that is acceptable to him by our selves when we cannot do it with you neither is it a vast and universal Toleration of all Blasphenius Heresies and Vnpeaceableness that we contend for but a forbearing of such as live peaceable in their Dissent from you in the smaller Concerns of Religion This Toleration would break nothing in pieces but the denying of it tendeth to break all in pieces For while Men have the use of their Conscience they will Dissent and serve God in the way that they
but held it for an Antichristian Sociâ—ty and therefore not to be communicated with Aâ—d that of the Independents who owned the Congregations in England to be True Churches but thought it unlawful to join with them because of the mixture of scandalous Sinners with visible Saints that was among them Separation on the first Ground is well refuted by the old Non-conformists and that of the second by the Assembly of Divines and other Presbyteriâ—ns Both these were active separation chosen by the separating Parties and that on grounds of Dislike with the Church that aâ—e indefensible But our Separation if it may be so called is passâ—ve we are driven away we seek the Communion of our Brethren we are willing to bear wiâ—h many things that are a Burden to us and which we wish to be reformed rather than have Separate Meetings We own the Parishes of England as the Church of Christ the Petition for Peace is a publick and authentick witness of all this but our Brethren will have no Communion with us unless we will own the Ceremonies that they without any warrant from Scripture impose on us which we cannot do without sinning against God and wounding our Consciences and we can and do give good Reâ—son and Scripture-warrant for this our Scruple Let then any Indifferent Person judge Whether it be fair dealing to condemn our not joining in the publick Worship of the Church by the Authority of them who condemned these fore-mentioned Separations But occaâ—â—on will be given to discourse this Matter further wherefore I now forbâ—ar Sect. 8. I hope what hath been said will evince That the Dr's following Historical Discourse hath the fault called Ignoratio elenchi running through the whole Texture of it and that it doth not tâ—uch the Question in hand but I shall take a more particular yet transient view of it He saith Sect. 8. at the beginning The Separation being now bâ—gâ—n the Non-conformists set themselves with the greatest vehemenâ—y against it If the Dr. would prove any thing against us he must shew That there was no forbearing of publick Ordinances on account of scrupling the Ceremonies by the Non-conformists before this the contrary of which I have shewed Also That it was Separation on that account and no other that they wrote against the contrary of which is most evident He may know that the Presbyterians now do differ nothing from the old Non-conformists in this for they have as much set themselves against the same sort of Separation and can make it appear that this is no way unsuitable to their own Principles or Practice It seemeth by what the Dr. citeth out of Mr. Parker that the Separation was charged on him as laying a Foundation for it by his Principles just as it is now with us If the Dr. can charge any of us with bitterness and pride the two Characters given by Parker to the Separatists let the Guilty bear their blame But I am sure our Principles that he is angry with import no such thing and therefore such an oblique Reflection on us in general is not Brotherly dealing We love not to recriminate Sect. 9. He alledgeth p. 28. that of the Four Reasons published by Barrow and Greenwood against the Separation Three of them were taken out of the Admonition given in by the Non-conformists to the Parliament He here exposeth these Non-conformists that then were as very ridiculous men who laid down Reasons for Separation and yet were so much against other mens practising what they gave Reason for If he think them such men why would he bind us to their Authority which is the tendency of this long Discourse But the Dr. doth both mistake and misrepresent this matter His Mistake is In the Admonition these things were presented as Grievances to be redressed not as Grounds of Separation His Misrepresentation is These Monitors did not speak of the Ministry Government and Worship as wholly unlawful antichristian and false for they owned the Ministry and Worship whatever thoughts they had of the Government as right for the substance tho' vitiated by some Modes adhering to them which they desired to be removed It is true Gilford saith they make a vile Schism rending themselves from the Church of England but doth he not add And condemning by their Assertioâ—s the whole visible Church in the World even as the Donatists did of old time Which sheweth that it was not scrupling of Humane Ceremonies that they are charged with but nullifying of Churches because of some Corruptions in them Gilford's words that follow p. 29. we are not concerned in We know that many were the sad effects of that Separation diverting People from the serious Exercises of Religion to Janglings And it is not without this effect on some where the oppressed Party is Innocent as to the main but that proveth not that we should comply with unscriptural Ceremonies to shun this Evil but that they should not be imposed on us As to Gilford's blaming them for not coming to the Book-Prayers this he spake without Book either in the heat of Disputation in which many do over-reach or it was his Opinion but is not ours I agree with Gilford That the Corruptions of the Church of England did not make her Antichristian and therefore the Brownists were to be blamed in separating from her as Antichristian not we who are ready to join with her as a Church of Christ but cannot digest her Humane Ceremonies in Divine Worship That Gilford was a Non-conformist the Dr. needed not to be at so much pains to prove That all Non-conformists are fallible men and some of them mistaken in some things we willingly grant We also close with what his next Author saith p. 30. That he is a Member of that Church where he is by Providence placed and that he ought not to separate from it while it is a true Church only with this Exception Unless that Church require me to sin and if I will not do so exclude me Which Exception it could not be expected that he should mention that not belonging to the thing then controverâ—ed It is hard for a Controversal Writer to guard his words against all Exceptions that contingent Cases not yet thought on may afford The same is to be answered to his Citations out of Mr. Bernard and the Confutation of the Errours of the Separatists dâ—ne in name of the Non-conformists so that this whole Discourse of the Doctor 's is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 10. He thinketh Sect. 9. to parallel our withdrawing from the Ceremonies with the Separation of the Brownists for if that be not desigâ—ed I know not what his Discourse tendâ—th to by setting down the concessions of these Separatists to wit That the Doctrine of the Church of England is sound and saving that they will not separate for every blemish in the Church So far we agree But they pleaded saith he that the Corruptions of the Church of England were such as overthrew the
with one another for that end Sect. 12. Next he enquireth Whether the Rule here mentioned was the Rule of mutual Forbearance I think the Question should rather be Whether it was a Rule of God's making or of Man's making Whatever the Rule were in particular Tirinus saith Regulam hic intelligit a Christo Apostolis ejus praescriptam Zanchius Doctrinam quam modo tradidit summam doctrinae Chrâ—stianae tum de dâ—gmatibus tum de moribus Doctrinam fidei say Estius Menochius Grotius saith Etiam qui de riâ—ibus circumcisione aliter sentiunt interim sâ—iant evangelij praecepta quae divina esse per suas sunt sibi esse sequenda If the Dr. can prove this Rule to be a humane Rule he will gain much by this Scripture otherwise nothing at all We are content to follow a Divine Rule for attaining Peace in the Church it doth indeed forbid peevish dividing of the Church by injoining to hold to the same Rule but the Dividers are not they that are content to follow all Christ's Rules but they that make Rules of their own and will tear the Church in pieces rather than these should not be observed The Third thing he enquireth into is What influence this Rule hath on our Case He saith It obligeth to go as far as we can This is confessed But then we say It is a Divine and not Humane Rule that must shew how far we can i. e. ought to go He saith When we can go no further we must sit down quietly and wait for further Instruction and not divide the Church Ans. When the Apostle speaketh ver 15. of God's further instructing them that mistake I suppose it expresseth rather the hope that the sound part should have of them that are short in Knowledge which should make them not over-drive them as our Brethren would do with us than what is their Duty I am far from saying that it is mens Duty to break the Peace of the Church but I am sure two things are far from being the Apostle's Scope to injoin such doubting Christians 1. That they should go over the belly of their Light to join with them that they differ from either in the Principles or the Practices that they scruple 2. That if they cannot have Communion in Ordinances with them unless they thus sin against Light that they should live without the Ordinances None of these we have any Rule for in the Gospel and therefore doing of these were not walking by any Rule that the Apostle here meaneth The Dr. saith p. 171. This Rule in order to Peace requireth the observing of such things which although they be not particularly appointed by God yet are injoined by lawful Authority and not repugnant to the Word I wish the Dr. had proved that the Apostle giveth any warrant to observe such things in the Worship of God we deny it It is fallacious to propose his distinction of things not particularly appointed by God but appointed by Lawful Authority but let us see a general Rule from the Word for what we scruple and that will satisfie us Or let us see what Authority Men have to appoint any thing that is in statu cultus or religioso that God hath not appointed It is most falsly asserted p. 172. that Because the Apostles decreed against a plausible pretence of Conscience about abstaining from Blood c. the Governours of the Church he hath now changed the stile it used to be the Magistrate by parity of Reason may determine those things which they think conduce most to the peace and welfare of the Church which they are bound to preserve For to give any colour of Truth to this Assertion he must prove 1. That ordinary Church-Governours have as much Power as the Apostles in such Cases 2. That there is a parity of Reason for the things determined by our Church-Guides and those by the Apostles these were necessary and the Apostles Decree found them so and had its Rise from this necessity The Ceremonies are confessed to be indifferent and to have no necessity but what it pleaseth the Church or Magistrate to give them Sect. 13. He saith p. 173 in answer to another of his Opposers That the Apostle gave binding Rules to particular Churches which are not extant in Scripture as appears by 1 Cor. 7. 17. Ans. 1. This Rule is expresly said to be given in all Churches not to any Church in particular 2. That this Rule is not extant in Scripture is false for it is extant in this place 3. This Rule that a man should keep within his station is no prudential Rule of Order and Government as the Dr. hinteth but a Principle of the Moral Law. 4. We are content to submit to all Rules that can be justly proved out of or inferred from Scripture tho' they be not in terminis extant there But the Rules for Liturgy and Ceremonies are none of these SECT VI. The Dr's Arguments against Independent Separation considered in so far as they may be thought to reach Presbyterians FRom Sect. 21. and forward the Reverend Author insisteth on the Charge of Schism against those that deny any Communion with the Church of England to be lawful to wit in partaking of the Ordinances with them who deny them tho' true Churches in some sence to be such Churches as they can abide in the Communion of and therefore must keep separate Meetings which they own as other Churches distinct from the Patrochial Churches He aimeth I suppose especially at the Independents I am not of that Perswasion and therefore leave the Patrociny of it to them that are Yet because many of the Dr's Arguments against their Separation may be thought by the unwary Reader to militate also against the Meetings of the Presbyterians I must not wholly pass over this part of his Book but I shall answer his Arguments so far only as they may be thought to condemn our Principle and Practice Sect. 2. Before I examine his Arguments I shall shew two considerable Differences between our withdrawing from the Church and that of the Independents 1. They have more grounds on which they separate than we and consequently more is required to bring them back to Communion with the Church than is to bring us to it for we withdraw as they also do because of the Liturgy Crossing in Baptism Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Lord's Supper observing of Holidaies If the Church will either remove these or bear with us in them we are ready to join with Her in Acts of Communion But besides these they sâ—parate because of the wrong Constitution of the Church in her Members want of a right Discipline faults in the election and ordination of Ministers Tho' the Liturgy and Ceremonies were not they would still separate as they do from the Presbyterian Churches where these are not 2. They separate because these are used We only because they are imposed as necessary terms of our being admitted to
Gifts and do not cross Christ's Institution whatever inconvenience may be in them 3. Nor do we deny the Lawfulness of a Presidency among Presbyters in the Person of one of them Nature maketh it necessary that one should preside in a Meeting to shun Confusion and Christ hath not instituted the duration of one man's Presidency whether for one meeting for a Month or Year or during his life and therefore the Church may determine in that Yet we must add That the perpetuating of a 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 or making a moderator constant having been of old and late the means of bringing in a Lordly Prelacy and corruption of ambitious men being so apt to improve it that way so that the Papal Chair hath arisen from this low and blameless Foundation we think it highly inconvenient 4. Neither do we deny that among Ministers the wiser graver and men of more Holiness and Experience should by their reason prevail over those that are not so well qualified It is Superiority of Power that is in question between us and our Brethren yea we deny not but some of Opinion for parity of Power have overborn their Brethren through their loftiness of Spirit an Episcopal Temper may be in a Presbyterian it is not mens Corruptions but their Principles that our debate is about 5. We deny not but the Name Bishop that in the Apostles times was common to all Eldeâ—s of the Church began very early to be appropriated to the Moderator who also was called Primus Presbyter and that this priority for as small as it was was too much affected and taken notice of even in the Apostles times Diotrephes who is said 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Jo. 3. 9. i. e. affected to be Primus Presbyter had a great mind to that dignity but this was when â—ew of the Apostles were now alive It is neither the Presidency nor the Precedency that we debate about but the Imparity of Church-Power or Authority 6. We deny not that prelatical Usurpation obtained in some places and was sâ—atched at in other places while yet the ancient Order of Parity among the Pastors of the Church was in most places retained 7. Though we deny that Diocesan Episcopacy prevailed in the Church for the first Three Hundred Years or that it was general in the fourth Century and are willing to enter the Lists with our Brethren in this debate about the first and purest Antiquity of Church-Government yet it is not mens Authority but divine Institution that we are determiend by and lay the stress of our Cause upon and will admit of no absolute Rule of judging in this Controversie but the Scripture Sect. 3. It might have been expected that the Dr. when he would charge us with so great blame as he doth in not submitting to the Authority of Prelates should have proved the Divine Institution or at least the lawfulness of that Office and answered the Arguments that our Writers bring against it This were the way to satisfie Mens Consciences but the Dr. is pleased to take an easier though not so perswasive a way to wit to refute Mr. B's Assertions about Episcopacy and to prove some things that are short of the main thing that is in question as I hope shall appear in our Progress And I have often observed that the confidence of our Brethrens Assertions in this Controversie is too big for the strength and concludency of their Arguments Sect. 4. It will contribute to our clear and sure procedure in this Controversie if we consider the difference and inconsistency that is among our Prelatical Brethren about the Episcopacy that they assert and the Foundation on which they build it as to the thing some of them do so restrain the Power of Bishops denying both sole Ordination and sole Jurisdiction to them that they make it little or no more but a Presidency So the learned and Pious Vsher who is followed by many of the more sober and learned of that party Grotius also goeth this way de Imper. sum potest circa sacra p. 337. others allow them Jurisdiction over other Pastors of the Church and exempt them from being liable to the Censures of their Brethren yet so as they ought not to rule by themselves but with the consent of the Pastors of the Church who are to be their Counsel Our Author Iren. p. 309. saith that both Jerom and Ignatius agree that the Counsel of Presbyters was of Divine Institution Others are for their Monarchial power in their several Diocesses neither being obliged to take the Counsel of the Presbyters nor being liable to their censures So the generality of our High Church-men Some make the Bishop the sole Pastor of the Diocess and all the Parochial Clergy to be but his Curates others think the Parochial Pastors to be substitute or delegate to none but Christ some think the Bishop's work is to preach the Gospel and administer Sacraments in his own Person and that this he should be constantly exercised in Others that his Work is to rule and that he need not trouble himself with other Work unless he please Some allow the Bishop a Power of delegating his Authority not of dispensing the Word and Sacraments only but of Government and Discipline to others yea to Lay-men that by them he may Excommunicate and judge Ministers and People Others think that he hath no power to do so so me think that it is inconsistent with the Office of a Bishop to be imployed in Civil Government others allow it Some think a Bishop should be chosen by the Church and that really and not seemingly only as when the Magistrate nominateth the Person to the Chapter who yet are not the Church of whom they must proceed to a Mock election others think those that come in this way to be none of Christs Bishops Some own Diocesan Bishops who yet see no warrant for the Hierarchy as it is stated among us in Metropolitans Primates Arch-bishops Deans Arch-deacons Chancellors c. Some hold the Office of Bishop to be distinct from that of Presbyter others deny this many School men are on both sides it was debated at the Council of Trent In all these things I observe very much Confusion and want of a distinct Idea of that Office that is debated about in the Writings of our Prelatical Brethren Sect. 5. There is as little agreement or distinctness among them about the Foundation on which the Office of a Diocesan Bishop standeth Some of them are for iâ—s divine Right as being instituted by Christ But this Plea they find so hard to be managed and to have so ill success and to be so little the way to preferment as derogating from the Supremacy of the Magistrate that most have laid it aside others that it is of Apostolick institution being not commanded by Christ but prudently setled by the Apostles Others that it is juris ecclesiastici brought in by the Primitive Church afâ—er the decease of all the
Cor. 12. 28. As Grotius and Hammond both of them also make him to be meant by Government and the same two Authors in the same verse by Teachers understand the same Officer They would be sure to find him somewhere but this very uncertainty where to fix him is a token that he is no where to be found Is it imaginable that the Apostle in a list of Church-Officers set down in so few words would use such repetition When so Learned Men are put to such shifts it is a sign the cause is so weak that it affordeth no better reason to defend it by That they are not meant by Teachers I have already shewed neither are they meant by Helps 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Grotius significat curam rei alicujus gerere This is said without Book be it spoken with due respect to that great Critick I find Authors cited for its signifying to take hold undertake uphold help correct but none for its signifying to take charge of a thing The place he referreth to Luk. 1. 54. can bear no signification of the word so well as that of helping and among all Criticks and other Interpreters he cannot produce one that so expoundeth the word either here or in that place but Men will say any thing to serve a turn Neither can the Diocesan be meant by Government not only because they are among the last and so the most inferior of Church-Officers but also because our Brethren will not say that the Bishop should only Rule and not Teach though it is too much their practice yet they will not averr this to be according to Institution as this Officer must do he being a distinct Officer from the Teacher I conclude If the Apostle had intended to set forth to us such an Eminent Officer of the Church we might have expected he should have if not clearly yet to the Satisfaction of an inquisitive mind set him down in some of these Catâ—logues which is not done Sect. 13. Argument fourth The power that we read of in the New Testament was never exercised by any ordinary Officers alone but by the Church-Guides in Common Ergo there was no Diocesan Bishop in the New Testament and if we have no warrant there our scrupling to own such a one is not unreasonable That Church-Power was so exercised I prove by Instances leaving to our Brethren if they can to bring Instances to the contrary First Ordination was performed by Presbyters in Common 1 Tim. 4. 14. It is a groundless Notion that some Men of great Name and Worth have on this place that Presbytery is meant of the Office for both it is a harsh phrase the hands of the Office and further the word 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 is often used in the New Testament yet is never used for the Office but for the College of Presbyters the Office is called 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 saith Camerarius others say That by the Presbytery here is meant the Company of the Apostles who are called Presbyters This cannot be for the Apostle ascribeth to himself a special concern above others in the Ordination of Timothy 2 Tim. 1. 6. Which he would not have done if the rest of the Apostles equal in Authority with himself had concurred but might well do it when he as chief and the ordinary Pastors as subâ—rdinate did join in this Action for it is the observation of Camerarius on this Text the Apostles did not use their extraordinary power often but when the Church was constitutâ—d acted in Conjunction with the ordinary Pastors and there was good reason for this to wit both that the Church-Guides might know that Apostolick power was not always to continue among them and that they might learn the way of Church-Administrations which they behoved to exercise by themselves when the Apostles were gone Sect. 14. Another Instance is in Excommunication which the Apostle injoineth the ordinary Eldâ—rs of the Church of Corinth to exercise against the incestuous Man he directeth his Injunctions not to a single Bishop but to a Company of Men 1 Cor. 5. That they being gathered together should deliver him to Satan vers 4 5. That they should purge out that old leaven vers 7. That it was their part not a single persons part to Judge the Members of the Church vers 12. That they should put away the wicked person vers 13. and spâ—aking of this Sentence 2 Cor. 2. 6. He expresly saith it was done by many and ascribeth the power of forgiving i. e. absolving from the sentence of Excommunication to them not to one Man. What ever different thoughts men may have about this delivering to Satan or about the Apostles Interest in this Action it is evident that here is Church-Power adjudging which implyeth Authority exercised by a Community A Third Instance of this is 2 Thes. 3. 14. Where a Community not a single person is commanded to Note them that were Disobedient to Paul's Admonition in his Epistle This is not to be understood as some take it of Noteing the Disobedient Person in an Epistle that they should write to Paul For First The emphatick particle 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 put before 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 denoteth that Epistle to wit that the Apostle now wrote not an Epistle that they should write Secondly The Greek word will not bear that signification 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 here used is Note or set a mark on him to Signifie or give Notice is 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 which word had surely been used if the Apostle had intended that they should give Notice to him by an Epistle of the Disobedient Thirdly He telleth them what should follow on this Note set on the Man and how they should carry towards him when thus Noted to wit that they should have no company with him this would not follow on their Writing about him to the Apostle while no Sentence was as yet passed against him but might rationally follow upon their setting the ignominious mark of Excommunication upon him If then Church-Discipline in the Apostolick and best times of the Church and especially while the Apostles being yet alive might have exercised it by themselves or their Delegates the Evangelists was yet exercised usually in Common and not by a single Bishop we have cause to scruple the owning of such an Officer in the Church Sect. 15. Other Arguments from Scripture may be brought but I shall not now insist on them having maintained some of them against this learned Author in my Animadversions on his Irenicum Wherefore I shall only add a fifth Argument as a ground of our scruple from some Testimonies of the Judgment and Practice of the Primitive Church that succeeded to the Apostles This may the more heighten our scruple that our brethren lay the stress of their cause on the Ancient Church if we cannot find there sufficient ground for a Diocesan Bishop but much to the contrary they ought not to blame us if we cannot with
Priest that is opeâ—ly so yet he may present a Protestant in Masquerade or one of the meanest of men for parts and other qualities of a Minister which it is known they often do when yet the Law of the Land can haâ—dly reâ—ch the Man. And a Debauched Patron may present one who will not reprove him too severely who yet may have qualifications to satisfie the Law. But the dissenâ—ions that arise among a divided people may be remedied by Church Dâ—scipline or if they break out into external disorders by the Magistrate 3. Bâ—cause saith he other reformed Churches have thought this an unreasonable preteâ—ce Answ. Mens Authority must not preponderate with us against that of Christ. He proveth what he saith 1. By Beza declaiming against popular Election see this in Bâ—z Ep. 83. Answ. Beza speaketh only against Election by the people without their Church-guides to manage them in that action The Lutheran Churches that he next addeth are no Examples to us Their way is much applauded by the Church of England men much more then the way of Englâ—nd is by them For as Pezel melâ—fic â—ist part 3. p. 345. observeth none did more fiercely persecute the Exiles in Qu. Mary's days than they did in Denmark Lubeck Rostoch and especially at Hamburgh The Salvo of the Synod of Dort shewâ—th that they did not allow Patronages but must proceed warily in removing them which hath been the case of other Churches but maketh against the Doctâ—r's opinion not foâ— it That the Ministers in France or the Council of State at Genâ—va chuse Ministers and obtrude them on the people without their consent we deny Sect. 28. I have by what is said preoccupied most of the Doctor 's Reasons against Mr. B. contained Sect. 26. I shall only take notice of a few things We make void no Laws about Patronage but so far as they respect the peoples right of chusing a pastor for their Souls and thus far they are cassate by the Laws of â—hrist As to Temple and Tythes as he speaks we medle not with Laws about them only we wish the removing of them as a Griâ—vance and that Rulers would provide for the Church in a way that the peoples right of Elâ—ction might not be hindered nor restrained in its Exercise Mr. B. objecteth p. 330. That the Patron by giving a right to Temple and Tythes doth not make the man a Minister to that peopleâ— Souls and the Parliament cannot dispose of peoples Souls The Doctor instead of an Answer giveth the meaning of this that if the people be humersome and factious they may run after whom they please in opposition to Laws This is ad populum fâ—lâ—ras but no fair way of Arguing The true meaning is that though the Paâ—non by Law may give a man a title to the Temple and Tythes and the people can neither keep him out of the Church nor deny to pay his dues yet the Law cannot make him their Pastor without their consent I do not say they should run after another it is fit they should consent to a tolerable person so imposed on them for peace sake yet it is not the Law but their consent that maketh him their Minister That Anabaptists Quakâ—rs and Papists will put in for a share in this priviledge is but a mâ—an objection for Christ hath given people power to chuse sound Pastors not whom they will. The Doctor asketh Whether all must have equal Votes then the worst who are the most part will chuse one like themselves Answ. This is to be regulated by the Guides of the Church the worst are to be instructed yea and censured if need be and if they chuse a bad man the Pastors are not to ordain him He alledgeth few are competent Judges Answ. Many can judge tolerably and they who cannot are to be guided by others but the matter is not wholly left to their judgment the Elected man being to be tryed by the Eldership He enlargeth on the tumulâ—s and strifs in popular Elections This hath been abundantly answered above That the matter is devolved on a few doth not take away the right of others who are willing to be advised by these few The Doctor is as certain that Christ never gave people such an unalterable right as he is that he designed Peace and Unity in the Church This certainty is built on no good grounds and therefore amounteth to no more but fancy I have shewed ground for a contrary perswasion and a way that Christ hath laid down for peace consistent with this right SECT VII Of the Terms of Communion imposed by the Church and First of the Liturgy THe Reverend Author is now at last Sect. 26. come to that which I reckon the main plea for our withdrawing from the Communion of the Church of England to wit the Terms of Communion that she imposeth on all that shall partake with her in the Ordinances of God which we count unlawful and therefore cannot submit to them the Church imposeth them so as none are permitted to joyn with her who forbear them and therâ—fore we cannot partake without them This putteth us on a necessity of forbearing Communion with her and the necessity of Worshipping God doth not suffer us to live without the Ordinances and thence resulteth a necessity of keeping sepâ—rate meetings which our Brethren blame us for and we blame them for forâ—ing us to it against our will. If these Terms of Communion upon due examination prove lawful we refuse not the blame of separation which we think as gâ—eat as they do but if they prove unlawful then doth the blame lie at their door who impose them Yea unbyassed men will say that if the things be but indifferent and of no necessity the Imposers cannot justifie the imposing of them when so sad inconvenience followeth upon them Sect. 2. These Terms of Communion in particular are the constant use of the Liturgy and the Ceremonies which are the Cross in Baptism Kneeling in the act of receiving the Lord's Supper and observing of Holy-days that God hath not appointed â—â—her Ceremonies they have which we also dislike but because they are not imposed as Terms of Communion we do not here mention them What is to be said of Godfathers and â—odmothers in Baptism we shall in its place examine The Doctor excuseth himself from saying any thing about the Lituâ—â—y because it hath laâ—ely been so very well defended by a Divine of this Church ciâ—eing on his Margin Dr. Falâ—oner's Vindication of Liturgies and I for the like cause forbear this debate or answering Dr. Falkoner that having been exceeding well done Anno 1681. by the Learned G. F. in his Questions between the Conformist and Nonconformist truly stated and briefly discussed which the Doctor if he had pleased to read the Writings on both sides the neglect of which he blameth us for might have taken notice of before his Third Edition came out 1682. But beside that neither Doctor Falkoner nor any other