Sect. 10. Yea the Apostle 2 Thess. 2. foretelling the Antichristian Apostacy v. 3. telleth us That that Mystery of iniquity did then work v. 7. This Allegation the learned Dr. putteth off with a Scoff p. 17. but we must not therefore part with it It is evident that there was then a tendency among some of the Members of the Christian Church to several of these Evils which being grown up to Maturity of Wickedness Antichristianism was afterwards made up not to speak of the gross Heresies that then were and others that were foretold Act. 20. 29 30. The Ambition of Diotrephes was a fermenting toward Lordly Prelacy 3 Joh. ver 9. So was the Idolizing of some Ministers among the Corinthians 1 Cor. 3. 4. So the turning aside to the Jewish Ceremonies a carnal gawdy sort of Religion not contented with the simplicity of Gospel-Worship for which the Galatians are reproved Gal. 4. 9. The worshipping of Angels voluntary Humility subjection to Ordinances touch not taste not handle not Will-Worship Col. 2. 18. Forbidding of Meats and Marriage 1 Tim. 4. 3. and in a word the turning the Spiritual Religion of GOD into a Carnal outward Shew All these I say was a working toward the vile Superstitions that afterward grew up under the Antichristian Apostasy of which our Ceremonies are some Remains Now if there was such a secret working of such Evils in that time is it any wonder that some unallowable practices should be in the Church soon after the Apostles and be little taken notice of Sect. 11. And this is yet less to be wondred at if we consider the defects and uncertainty of the History of the Church in Times next after the Apostles as it was in the first Times of the Church before the Law which the Jews call 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Dies inanitatis because of the want of the Light of History It was little better with the Christian Church at first We have very little distinct account of her Order and what we have is but in some things not so full as to enable us to pass a Judgment with Confidence of all their Practices in Church-Administrations It is no good Argument there is no mention of Dissent from or Non-conformity to the Church-practices of the First Times â—rgo there was none especially considering that the Writers of those Times who were glorious Lights yet Men and subject to mistakes and passions would not readily give account of what might make against their own practices And it can be made appear that the best of the Church Guides after the Apostles were in mistakes greater than what we now scruple at But the early Degeneracy of the Christian Church which our Author thinks it so absurd to imagine is witnessed by the most ancient History and nearest to these Times Eusebius lib. 3. c. 29. relating out of Egesippus the Martyrdom of Simon Son of Cleopas second Bishop of Jerusalem who had seen the Lord and was his Cousin Germain he addeth that After that the Sacred Company of the Apostles were worn out the Church having before been a pure Viâ—gin the Conspiracy of detestable Errors through Deceit of such as delivered strange Doctrine took rooting c. If Heresie so soon got head what Absurdity is it to think that lesser Evils might early prevail This may be also proved in reference to the Rites used in the Church how early there was a degeneracy in these out of Irenaeus who lived in the second Century Epist. ad Victor Episc. Rom. Quae varietas observantiae pascatis jejuniorum non 〈◊〉 primum neque nostris temporibus caepit sed multo aute nos ut opinor qui non simpliciter quod ab initio traditum est tenentes in alium morem vel per negligentiam vel per imperitiam postmodum decidere Where it is evident that Irenaeus imputeth such negligence and unskilfulness even to the First Age and nearest to the Apostles if not in the days of some of them as made them fall from Christs Institution in some things The consideration of all which maketh me wonder at the Confidence of the learned Author who saith that So sudden and insensible a Change of the Church is so incredible that they that think it could be may on the same Grounds believe that other parts of Popery did as soon prevail That this Change did soon prevail we believe not but that it might we see no Absurdity in it and for other parts of Popery we can tell when most of them begun and therefore are not obliged from the Antiquity of one part of it to acknowledge the same of another neither is there any Inconveniency in asserting that these Mistakes crept in insensibly Seeing the Apostle speaketh of them as a Mystery that was long working before it came above-board What he saith of humane Policies keeping long to their first Institution maketh little to his purpose both because the contrary is most frequently observed they often degenerate and that unobserved by the Vulgar through the Cunning of Statesmen and because corrupt Nature is not so apt to deviate from Humane Constitutions as from those that are Divine Few Politick Frames have been so often and quickly and easily changed as the Religious Worship of the Jews was in the time of the Judges and Kings I hope by this time it will appear that the Principles of the Church's Enemies so he falsly calleth the Non-conformists who are no Enemies to the Church but to her humane Ceremonies bringeth no such mighty prejudice on the Cause of the Reformation as he with confidence inferreth from what he had discoursed for we neither own such Antiquity in the Ceremonies nor if we did would that inferr the Antiquity of Popery in its grosser parts Sect. 12. He again chargeth his Adversaries that They must forgo the Testimony of Antiquity and that by so doing they run into insuperable Difficulties in dealing with the Papists which his Principles do lead through for they can justly charge Popery as Innovation And to that purpose citeth Bishop Sanderson p. 6. In answer to him and the Bishop too We say 1. That we do not forgo the Testimony of Antiquity though we do not Idolize it as some do we will not be concludâ—d by it against Scripture and not often without Scripture but take its help to search into the Mind of God revealed in His Word It s greatest Admirers must needs forgo it sometimes both Papists and Prelatists and the ancient Authors themselves do not seldom disown all Authority in them or any men to determine in the Controversies of Religion But I shall not digress into this Debate What Weight is to be laid on Antiquity it is enough at present that we deny and our Adversaries have not proved nor shall they ever be able to prove that Bishops and Ceremonies are so ancient as they affirm them to be what Instances he intendeth or can give from his present Adversaries the Non-conformists that they
always observed in the days of Cloâ—harius in France which of them he meaâ—eâ—h I know not there were three of that Name the first of them was about the Year 560. the last a hundred years after now if the Infancy of this usage was so late and it grew by degrees the adult State of it must be as indeed it is a very Novel device of men to subject Religion to their Lusts. Sect. 19. 3. I deny that on that alteration of Government in the State there was either greater reason than before or any reason for Princes to interpose so in the Election of the Pastors of the Church as to take it out of the peoples Hand That there was no greater reason then before I prove both because he cannot shew us such reason and also because before this there were Tumults and Confusions which might require the Magistrates interposition and also because the Christian Emperours had as much power over the Church in their large Dominions as Christian Kings could pretend to in their lesser Kingdoms No difference in this can be assigned either from any grant of Christ to the one more then to the other nor from sound reason That which the Dr. bringeth for a Reason is none at all to wit The Northern Princes endowing Churches liberally For 1. Did not the Emperours so too Coâ—stantin's liberality was exceâ—ding great which occasioned that saying hodie veninum infusum est in Ecclesiam and yet he laid not out that Treasure to purchase the Rights that Christ had given to his People 2. The Liberality was no sufficient price to purchase Gospel Priviledges from them that Christ had granted them to more than Jacobs Pottages was for Esâ—us's Birth-right It is a Conceit unworthy of a Divine and only fit for Simon Magus that the Liberality of Princes or others to the Church can entitle them to be Masters of her priviledges As there is no more reason now then before so there neither was nor is any reason at all why Magistraâ—es should mâ—dle with the Election of Church Officers because it is the peoples right by Christ's Institution and hath been owned by the Church and the Magistrate for many Ages as hath been shewed above Sect. 20. The Dr. saith that after the solemn Assemblies of the people came to be much used these priviledges in Election of Church-men of Princes came not only to be Confirmed by the consent of the people but to be enlarged This he insisteth much upon afâ—erward alledging that the people of England by their representatives in Parliament have given away their power of Elecâ—ion and put it into the Hand of the Magistrates Bishops and other Patrons A s. 1. I deny that the people could give away this right it was Christ's Legacy to them and not alienable by them It doth concern their Souls not their temporal Estates and such concerns are not at Mens disposal 2. I deny that this was done people never gave away this Right it was partly by violence and partly by Fraud wrested out of their Hands what he saith of the Parliaments giving it away wherein the People are represented is a mistake for the people are represented in Parliament as they are Members of the Body Politick and they instrust all their worldly Interests and Lives and Estates to them whom they chuse and they may dispose of these by making Laws to secure them and also to take them away when the publick good doth so require but they are not there represented as they are Members of the Church neither do they or can they entrust the Parliament with the concerns of their Souls or the Church Rights and Priviledges These Christ hath made Laws about and no Man can make Laws about them all that men can do in reference to these is Ministerial not Magisterial as Acts of Parliament are it is to declare Christ's Laws and to put them in Execution and Christ hath not entrusted Kings nor Parliaments with these Affairs but only his Ministers and the people can entrust no other with them The 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in this discourse of the Dr's on which all of it is built is his confounding of Church and State with Erastus which is to mingle Heaven and Earth Sect. 21. He saith The Princes obtained by degrees not only the Conâ—irmation of the Election bâ—t the Liberty of Nomination with a shadow of Election by the Clâ—rgy and others of the Court as appears by the formula of Marculphus Answ. Here is plain dealing both to let us see what fraâ—dulent ways were used to cheat the people of their Right by leaving a Shadow of Election when the substance was taken away and also that Princes were not in ancient possession of this Priviledge that they behoved by such Policies to wind themselves into And further that it is so grosly evil that Princes are ashamed openly to own such a Power over the Church but must thus hide the shame of this practice if they have a good Title why leave they a shadow of Election If not why do they assume the substance of it He ciâ—eth on the Margin in Confirmation of this grant made to Kings several Acts of Couâ—cils as Concil Aurelian An. 549. but this destroyeth his cause for Can. 3. which I suppose is that he aimeth at dâ—th barely name the King whose interest in all Church matters no man denyeth so far as the peace of the State is concerned in tâ—em but expresly requireth the Election of the Clergy and People and again their consent and moreover maketh this Election a clero plebe to be as it is written in the Antient Canons Concil Aurelan 2. Can. 7. doth also expresly mention popular Eâ—ection and Concil Aurelâ—an 3. Can. 2. doth require their consent And Concil Aurelian 4. Can. 4. requireth a Bishop to be ordâ—ined in his Church to which he was Elected decreto that was the ordinary Term for the Writing wherein the peoples Election was conâ—ained And in all these Canons there is not one word of the Magistrate except in the first as abovesaid His Concil Tarracoâ— I cannot find Concil Tolet. 12. that he citeth was in the end of the seventh Century when Corruptions were come to a great height and it was but provincial it saith indeed quoscunque pâ—testas regia â—lâ—gerit but the peoples Election is not exluded tho not mentioned and there is an express salvo it is the 6th Can. for the liberty of the Provinces which cannot well be understood but of the priviledge of the people of the Province Sect. 22. He telleth us of great Contests between the Papal and Regal power and how the latter prevailed in England and citeth several Acts of Parliament as of Edward 6th and others Aâ—sw What doth all this prove If two contend about a Third Persons Estate and the one prevail against the other doâ—h that give him a Title We deny that either Pope or Prince had a right to that they strove about and
by lawful Authority men who are zealously and godly affected may not with any good conscience approve them use them or as occasion requireth subscribe to them let him be Excommunicated ipso Facto and not restored untill he repent and publickly revoke these his wicked Errours The Dr. hath a subtile distinction here between but affirm which term Mr. B. had used and affirm One would think that affirm and no more added to it signifieth no more than but affirm But the Dr. saith that affirm signifieth these circumstances which according to the common sense of mankind do deserve Excommunication viz. that it be done publickly and obstinately What ground the Dr. hath for this criticism I know not I am sure his citation out of Augustine that a man is born with till he find an accuser or obstinately defend his opinion saith nothing of the sense of the word affirm Neither do I think that our Courts will be ruled by Augustine or the Dr. either If a man with the greatest modesty imaginable being asked why he doth not Conform shall say he cannot do it with a good conscience he falleth under the plain letter of this Law and goeth against the express words of it and this is the least that a modest man can say unless he will say I will not do it and that will be called obstinacy and so bring him under the Law in the Dr's own sense But if the man as a modest man may give reasons for his Non-conformity when men require him to Conform every word he saith will bring him under this Excommunication Sect. 3. Another answer that the Dr. bringeth against this Plea is pag. 368 369. where he tells us of the opinion of Canonists that such an excommunication is but a commination and cannot affect the person till a sentence be past applying it to him and that men under such excommunication are not obliged to execute it against themselves by withdrawing from the Church I shall not contend about this though one would think that such excommunication as he describeth were rather ipso Jure than ipso Facto and that excommunication ipso Facto bringeth one under the sentence as soon as the fact is committed But to let that pass this excommunication declareth what we are to expect and the frequent yea general execution of it putteth most part out of capacity to come to Church and may justly alarm the rest to seek a retreat for themselves in time It is as when an act of banishment is passed by the Magistrate the party is so far loosed from his Obligation to that Society that he may with a good conscience withdraw before he be violently transported sure such excommunication and the fact which we neither deny nor are ashamed of are enough to loose our tie that we had to the Church Sect. 4. He answereth a question Can these be called Schismaticks who are first excommunicated by the Church He saith they may in two cases 1. When there is just cause for the sentence Reply I deny not but such are to be condemned for their giving just cause for such a sentence and it may be on the same ground they may be called Schismaticks but to call men Schismaticks for not joining with a Society that hath cast them out seemeth to be such a figure as when men are called Fugitives who are justly banished but I will not contend about words If the Dr. can prove our excommunication just let him call us what he will. The instances he giveth make nothing for that none of these Churches require sinful terms of Communion imposing mens devises in the Worship of God and then excommunicate men for not submitting to them His second case in which excommunicates are Schismaticks is if they set up New Churches which he proveth from the instances of the Churches that he had before mentioned Reply He now supposeth the excommunication to be unjust else this case were coincident with the former And in that case I distinguish his assertion The unjust excommunication is either for an alledged personal fault or for a principle of Religion unjustly called false Again it is either past against one or few or it is against a great multitude a considerable part of a Church or Nation If it be for an alledged personal fault where it is hardly supposed that a great part of the Church can be concerned I do not say that such may set up new Churches It is fit such should quietly wait till they can be cleared they having in that case no ground to charge the Church with any fault in Doctrine Worship or Discipline but in the mis-application of a true and right way of Discipline But where the unjust excommunication is for a sound principle falsly called errour and it also reacheth a great part of the Church Ministers and People I see no reason why they should not have the Worship of God among themselves let men call it setting up of new Churches or what they will. For 1. It were strange if the half of a Church or Nation or near so many should be obliged to live without the Ordinances of God for the Caprice of some ambitious Church-men who excommunicate them because they will not dance after their Pipe. 2. In this case the Orthodox had been Schismaticks when they were excommunicated by the Arians and set up New Churches 3. Christ should oblige his People to live without his Ordinances because of their love to the purity of them What the Author objecteth out of Augustine is not to be understood of our cases but for private men excommunicated for falsly-imputed crimes not for any thing of their Faith for he bids them keep the true Faith without Separate meetings Sect. 5. Our Author proceedeth in the end of page 371. and forward to consider another Plea made for separation to wit scruple of Conscience which I think none do make the sole ground of separation but they have a ground for their scruple If that ground be good it will warrant the scruple and the separation too if not it can do neither And therefore I shall not insist on this as a plea distinct from what I have already defended I suppose the Author that mention it intend no more than I say only they may rationally maintain that a scruple not sufficiently warranted in a person otherwise sober and sound about a matter indifferent or not intollerably evil tho' it doth not free the scrupler from all blame yet may oblige the Church not to impose with rigour the things so scrupled on such a person The Dr. here doth not act the part of a Disputant nor a Casuist but of somewhat else that I shall not name For when it had been pleaded that these scruples are great of long standing not to be removed without very over-powering impressions on mens minds He answereth by a harange full of contempt of his adversaries that a little impartiality and consideration would do it but that
the Church The Bishops shewed kindness unto them for their Zealous Preaching A few remarks on this will serve to clear our way 1. It seems the Episcopal Party had not such respect as was fit to the Consciences of their dissenting Brethren in that they were getting Laws made to force them to that which they could not perswade them to by the Gospel but this is the Old Spirit of that party which still createth trouble to the Church 2. That some of them accepted of Preferment and these he nameth Gilby Whittingham are among them whom Fuller placeth in the Ranck of fierce Non-conformists sheweth how loath they were to divide from their Brethren as long as they were suffered to keep their Consciences undefiled 3. He omitteth to tell us that these men would never subscribe to the Liturgy nor use the Ceremonies which Mr. Fuller Lib. 9. p. 76. informeth us of that not only these fiery men as he calleth them but even the moderate Non-conformists as Mr. Fox Mr. Lawrence Humfrey refused to subscribe 4. It was a commendable piece of Moderation in the then Bishops that they suffered these Men to Preach notwithstanding of their Non-conformity Indeed there was cause for it they were able and useful men and the Church had much need of their Labours Fuller saith p. 65. Tolerability was Eminency in that Age. A Rush Candle seemed a Torch where no brighter Light was seen before where he telleth us of a Sheriff's Preaching for want of other to do that work and how sorrily he performed it If the present Bishops would exercise the same moderation they needed not to be afraid of Separation Sect. 31. He proceedeth to tell us that these Non-conformist Preachers first let fall their dislike of Ceremonies and gaining Ground they called them the Livery of Antichrist and enflamed the People and this was the first Occasion of pressing Vniformity with Rigor Some were silenced as kindness had made them Presumptuous this made them Clamorous Mr. Fuller giveth another account of this matter p. 76. The English Bishops conceiving themselves Impowered by their Canons began to shew their Authority in urging the Clergy of their Diocess to subscribe to the Liturgy Ceremonies and Discipline of the Church and such as refused the same were Branded with the Odious Name of Puritans and p. 81. He sheweth how Ministers were contented before B. Grindal one of the most moderate but pressed to Rigor by the rest who asked them have we not a Godly Princess speak is she Evil A Question fitter for the Inquisitors in Spain than a Protestant Bishop That the Non-conformists preached against the Ceremonies is neither to be doubted nor wondered at so did our Lord and Master and his Apostle Paul It was their duty to teach people to observe all that Christ hath Commanded that being their Commission if they spake Falshood or Truth in an undue manner they were liable to Correction What our Author calleth inflaming the People others will call faithful warning of them against what might displease God and defile their Consciences Any who enflameth them to unsober or unpeaceable principles or practices let them bear their blame I see nothing in their Carriage under the Bishops forbearing of them that deserâ—eth the Name of presumption nor under their Sufferings that should be called Clamorousness as the Dr. calleth their informing their Friends at Geneva how they were used But it is the Spirit of that party to use cruel Severity against them that differ from them and reproach them if they say they feel it Patience and Stoical Apathy are not the same thing There is nothing yet said by the Dr. that can cast the Blame of Separation on the Non-conformists or free the Bishops of it Sect. 32. He saith further p. 19. at the end About this time the dissenting Party being exasperated by silencing some of their most Zealous Preachers began to have separate Meetings where they Preached and Prayed and had the Sacraments Here we have out of the Mouth of an Adversary the true Cause and Original of the Separation tho' somewhat unfavourably represented the cause of it was they could not have Gods Ordinances without Mans Inventions their Ministers being silenced who administred them purely and tho' but some of them at first were silenced yet the rest were under the same Condemnation by the Law and daily expected the Execution of the Law on them and all the People could neither have the ordinances by those that were as yet unsilenced nor could they live without them So that it was not Exasperation but desire to wait on God in his own Ordinances that made them take that course This account of it themselves give as the Dr. hath it p. 20. before the Bishop of London whose Discourse to them the Dr. relateth unbecoming the Moderation of B. Grindal charging them with lying pretences without any Ground mentioned and unbecoming the Learning of a Bishop charging them with Condemning the Reformation Sect. 33. The next thing he insisteth on is Beza's advice to the Ministers and people who tho' he sheweth his dislike of the Ceremonies and adviseth the Ministers not to subscribe yet presseth the silenced Ministers not to Exercise their Function against the will of the Queen and the Bishops And the People to wait on the Word and Sacraments notwithstanding of the Ceremonies that they might by these means obtain a through Reformation And to Ministers he saith that they should not leave their Functions for the Sake of the Ceremonies In which Advice the Dr. doth much insult How impartially Beza's opinion in this case is represented by the Dr. I know not not being able at present to get a sight of the Book but some other Citations already examined make me jealous especially seeing the Dr. maketh Beza contradict himself for p. 21. he maketh him advise the silenced Ministers to live privately and not exercise their Functions against the Will of the Q. and the Bishops But p. 22. he maketh Beza say to them that the Ceremonies are not of that moment that they should leave their Functions for the sake of them But whatever were Beza's opinion Non-conformists of old and late took the Word of God and not the Authority of Men for the Rule of their Faith and Practice They honour such as Beza and are ready to receive Instruction from them but must have leave to examine all by Scripture as the Beraeans did the Doctrine even of Paul. Again Beza is far from advising Ministers to forbear Preaching a together because restrain'd by the Magistrate That principle never obtained among Protestant Divines and is to be examined afterward but he disliked their publick appearance in that case which may be constructed a Defiance and Contempt of the Magistrate For they had hired a Hall in London as publick as any Church for their Meetings Christ's Apostles were private with the Doors shut when they might not be publick and so should we and yet not give over
Preaching and Hearing when Men forbid us We should do it peaceably and inoffensively but do it notwithstanding For his Advice to the People I cannot approve it yet doth it not reach our Case for he adviseth to Conformity for the present with express mention of their Hope of a further Reformation which we are out of all hope that ever our Clergy will yield to In Beza's Resolution of a Case mentioned by the Dr. p. 23. I desiderate one cause of Separation from a Church to wit Imposing unlawful Terms of Communion unless either this be comprehended under the right use of the Sacraments that he mentioneth or such withdrawing be not properly a Separation but a being driven away Sect. 34. He saith this Advice of Beza's put an effectual stop to the Separation I find no such thing in History but rather the contrary The same opinion he citeth of Gaulter ep dedicat in homil ad 1. Ep. ad Corinth Zanchie ep lib. 2. p. 391. where Gualter complains of the Lyes and Prejudices against the Church of England I wish it have not been Lyes written by that party that made him write so and Zanchie is even for Ministerial Conformity It is an easie thing to gather Scraps and Sentences out of mens Writings that represent them as speaking what they never thought and nothing is more ordinary with this Author than to perswade himself at least to endeavour to perswade his Reader that all the World are of his opinion It is enough to us in this matter that the Reformed Divines beyond Seas did not use the Ceremonies but have condemned them and that on such Grounds as make them unlawful to be used to wit that they are Vain Worship Additions to the Word of God the Symbols of Popish Idolatry c. and if notwithstanding of all this any of them would perswade us to use them their Doctrine doth hinder us to obey their advice which we look on as an overlash of Charity to the then good Bishops of England who were Labouring to Reform the Church from Popery Sect. 35. He telleth us next Sect. 7. of a New Generation of fiercer Non-conformists the peaceable ones being worn out It is not unusual for Adversaries to represent true Zeal as fierceness but if there was undue forwardness among them we defend not the Faults of Men but the Truth of God which they owned There was a sinful fierceness among some of Christ's Disciples when they called for Fire from Heaven Luke 9. 54 55. but this was no Argument against their cause We with sad Hearts behold the scandalous Fierceness that is among some Antiprelaâ—ists at this day but must not change our Principles for that And was there then and is there now no fierceness on the otherside If we may judge of former days by the present we may rationally ascribe the fierceness of some of the Suffering Party to that of the persecuting Party as the Exciting cause for oppression maketh a Wise Man mad Eccles. 7. 7. for the Complaint that Mr. Fox maketh of them which he Citeth out of Fuller Ch. Hist. lib. 9. p. 106. If the Circumstances be considered it will be found not to prove what the Dr. bringeth it for We must know then out of the same Author that the Complaint in this Letter was against some particular men in Magdalen College who were no Representatives of the Non-conformists that it was not occasioned by any of their Principles or Religious Practices but by a particular injury done by these men to Mr. Fox as he thought And Mr. Fox was as likely to be byassed in the matter in Controversie between him and these men he complained of as they were The Matter was his Son Samuel had left the College and gone beyond Sea without leave either of his Father or the College and at his return was suspected of Popery and for this he was by that party that Mr. Fox is so angry with expelled the College Beside all this any who readeth that Letter of Mr. Fox's may see a Strain and meet with Expressions very unbecoming Old Reverend and Good Mr. Fox who had always professed himself a Non-conformist tho he had more Latitude about the use of the Ceremonies than some others had Factiosa ista puritanuorm capita isti ter puri puritani and some other foul Reflections with the odious name that Enemies gave to that Party are very unsavory from such a Pen But Age and supposed Injury must bear the blame of the peevish strain that is too manifest throughout that whole Letter It were a hard case if the faults either real or supposed of some were always to be charged on all the Party The Dr's own Party would be black enough if they were thus dealt with and even the Historian no Friend to the Non-conformists calls this Letter such a Strain of Rhetorick as once Tully used pro Domo sua and imputeth the too much passion in it to the unjust Affront offered to him Sect. 36. Next the Dr. doth highly resent the Admonitions First and Second presented in the Name of the Non-conformists to the Parliament by Mr. Thomas Cartwright But I see not by what he citeth out of these Admonitions wherein the bitter Zeal of that Party appeared Neither that they despised the old Trifling Controversy about Garments and Ceremonies for these were still the Grounds of their Non-conformity tho they complained also of other Grievances Neither do I find that they said all was out of Course in the Church they owned the Protestant Religion but desired that the Reformation might be more through by laying aside some of the Remainders of Popish Superstitions formerly overlookt I wonder why the Dr. should startle so much at their complaining of the Liturgy Bishops and Arch-bishops the Way of câ—lling their Clergy the Ceremonies annexed to the Sacraments which are the Grievances by these Admonitions laid before the Parliament with an humble Petition for redressing of them Seeing he knoweth that these are the very things that our Controversie is Conversant about and tho' all these be not the Grounds of our withdrawing from their Worship yet all of them are such things as we are grieved with and desire a Reformation of That he calleth them bold and groundless Assertions is a more bold and groundless Assertion than any of them for he knoweth Grounds have been given which it were better to refute than rail at It is also strange that he saith That these Admonitions gave the true occasion to the following Practice of Separation when himself assigneth another Cause of it before this p. 18 19. and yet another that he dateth it from long after to wit the Indulgence Praef. p. 23. Sometimes he layeth it on the Jesuits Praef. p. 11. and indeed he knoweth not wheâ—e to lay it missing the true Cause which is Episcopal Rigour in their unscriptural Impositions on the one hand and Consciencious Obedience to the Word of God on the other That this Cause
very Constitution of a Church in which we differ from them as he saith p. 33. the old Non-conformists did of whom he saith that they held That nothing could justifie Separation from the Church but such corruptions which overthrow the Being of it And he saith The force of all their Reasonings against the Separation lay in this and the denying of such corruptions to be in the Church For proving of this he sheweth That the Separatists thought nothing could justifie their Separation but that which nullified the Church and it is no wonder for they minded nothing but an active Separation and not that of being driven away by sinful Terms of Communion imposed It is true they mention the Service as one of their Pleas for Separation but not barely as unlawful to be used but as nullifying the Church which we never pleaded For what he addeth p. 35 c. that the Non-conformists when they would disprove the Separation only proved the Church of England to be a True Church It is no wonder that they minded no more seeing that was to overturn the very Foundation of the adverse Cause But Did they ever teach that we ought to communicate with a true Church in those parts of her Worship that are sinful which is the one half of the Controversie that we now manage He insulteth much in an Assertion of the Non-conformists p. 36. at the end That the Church of England is a true Church of Christ and such a one as from which whosoever wittingly and continually separateth himself cutteth himself off from Christ. I might say as much as all this without giving the least advantage against our Cause for we do not separate our selves but the Door is shut against us by as many Bars as they have imposed Ceremonies which we cannot use without Sin and they will not suffer us to worship God with them without these Again We do not continually separate from the Church but are ready and waiting to return to Communion with her in all Ordinances whenever these sinful Bars shall be removed that keep us out the Separatists could say neither of these That the old Non-conformists did not understand their Assertion of such a Case as ours is is evident for they were men of so much Sence and Reason as that they could not imagine it impossible that any should lawfully withdraw from joining with a Church because of sinful Terms of Communion required They could not blame any Member of the Church of Pergamus to refrain from the Communion of that Church if that Communion were denied to that Member unless he would either approve of the Doctrine of the Nicolaitans or at least consent to the tolerating of it Such is our Case we are denied Christ's Ordinances in the Church unless we will approve by our practice the Ceremonies which we judge sinful with what Face can they blame us for doing that which themselves put us into so great a Necessity to do Have we not rather cause to take up David's complaint against them 1 Sam. 26. 19. They have thrust us out from the Inheritance of the Lord saying go serve other Gods. Had it been fair dealing to call David a Separatist in his Exile because he waited not on the Temple Service And yet the Necessity that he was under of abstaining from it was not so great as ours That was Bodily Hazard ours is Soul Hazard by sinning against God. Sect. 11. The Non-conformists Reasons that he bringeth for their Assertion p. 36. prove no more than what is already granted as any that readeth and understandeth them may perceive What he bringeth out of Jacob against Johnson and Ball against Can is nothing against us to wit That the Church of England is a true Church From p. 39. He sheweth that Non-conformists held That the Corruptions of the Church of England were not such as did over-throw the Being and Constitution of it which we willingly yield to What he Citeth out of other Non-conformists p. 40 41. about Forms of Prayer and the English Liturgy shall be examined in its due place if the Lord permit I know some Non-conformists have had and some now have a greater freedom to use it than others have But as now there are so of old there were others that could not comply with it What ever was Giffard's opinion about the Ceremonies being Antichristian if he thought them Lawful to be used which is our Question I know not why he should be reckoned a Non-conformist But indeed there is nothing of that in what the Dr. Citeth p. 41 42. What he bringeth p. 42 43 44 45 46 47. out of several Non-conformists to shew that the Ministry Discipline and Hierarchy of the Church of England is not Antichristian nor the Church-Antichrist we are not concerned to disprove and the Dr. might have spared all this Transcribing it being wholly beside the question Some things he maketh them say that deserve a little Animadversion but I will not now Digress to take notice of them Sect. 12. He proceedeth Sect. 12. To give Accompt of the Independent Separation and how it was opposed by the Assembly of Divines by such reasons as will hold against the present Separation I confess there is a present Separation that these Reasons do hold against for that same Separation doth still continue But he doth not prove his point unless he make it appear that these Reasons conclude that we should use the Ceremonies rather than forbear Church-Communion with the Prelatists But his Reasons for what he saith we shall attend in their course What reflection the Dr. thinks to cast on the Non-conformists by the breaking of Brown's Church in Midleborough and his jugling in the Matters of God I know not This long Story hath either no design which I cannot impute to a Man of his Parts or an ill design which I am loth to impute to one of his Worth. However it be we disclaim all concern in it There have been Breaches and Apostasies among others as well as among Non-conformists That a nameless Author calleth Brown's Preaching privately in time of the Publick Assemblies a Cursed Convenâ—icâ—e it may be there was cause if Brown was such a bad Man as the Dr. maketh him But I know some of these Meetings that the Dr. is so displeased with are blessed of the Lord. He imputeth these and the other Dissentions that followed to the Judgment of God on them this we are no way concerned to Apologize for Their way was Evil and it did not prosper If the Doctor can prove our way to be Evil let him pass what Judgment he will on what befalleth us but till then Sobriety in judging is becoming No doubt the Papists thought they had as good cause to construe Providence to favour them because of the Confusions and Ruin that followed in Germany on the Reformation We have Sins enough to provoke the Lord against us but we are not convinced that the Things in Controversy are to be
one of the newest Inventions of this Age. This conclusion I easily yield to and who are the Inventers and Maintainers of the Contrary I know not I hope he will not blame us when we are thrust out of the Church that we do not lie about the Church-walls rather than go to another place to Worship God by our selves If we do any thing but what we can shew Christ's command for let him blame us 3d. Conclusion Bare Scruple of Conscience doth not justifie Separation altho it may excuse Communion in the particulars scrupled provided they have used the best means for a right Information I do so fully Assent to this Conclusion that I shall say more than the Dr. doth to wit that bare scruple of Conscience cannot excuse even Communion in the particulars scrupled whatever means have been used for Information For Scruples that have no Scripture Ground and what else can be meant by bare Scruples I know not make an Erring Conscience which however it may excuse ae toto can excuse from nothing in totum But if our Scruples such as they are and we may say we have used the best means that we could for Information do excuse us from Communion in the particulars Scrupled and if by the force of rigid Men we be deprived of Gods Ordinances unless we will communicate in these scrupled particulars I hope the Duty that lyeth on us to worship God and not live like Atheists will so far warrant that which the Dr. will call Separation that it will be hard for him to disprove it unless he retract this conclusion by which he hath given a sore Blow to his cause I oppose to this regardlesness of Mens Consciences that the Dr. seemeth to allow himself in the Judgment of the Excellent Judge Hales in his piece of Schism who saith That nothing absolveth from the Guilt of Schism but true and unpretended Conscience Also that requiring the doing of an unlawfuâ— or suspected Act is a just cause of refusing Communion Sect. 16. Conclusion 4. Where Occasional Communion is lawful constant Communion is a Duty I suppose he meaneth of that particular Church in which a Man is a Member and hath his constant Residence otherwise it is manifestly false for it is lawful for me to have Occasional Communion with the Protestant Church of France but that I am not constantly bound to Communicate in England if my Occasions call me often abroad But take it in the most favourable Sense the Assertion is not true It is lawful to have Occasional Communion with a Church that hath one Ordinance pure Exemp Gr. Preaching I may as occasion serveth join in that Ordinance but if there be nothing else pure or that I can partake of without Sin in that Church I am obliged to look after another Occasion where I may enjoy all Gods Ordinances without sinful additions and having got that opportunity I do not see what Obligation lieth on me constantly to hear in that Corrupted Church rather than where I enjoy all the Ordinances in Purity What he alledgeth out of the Assemblies Reasons against the Dissenting Brethren doth not all quadrate with our case for the Congregational Men could not alledge that any unlawful Terms of Communion were imposed on them by the Presbyterians in one Ordinance more than another and therefore if they might join in one Ordinance they might in all and so had no excuse from constant Communion if occasional Communion was lawful But this question about occasional and constant Communion the Dr. bringeth in afterward therefore enough of it at present Sect. 17. Conclusion 5th That withdrawing from the Communion of a true Church and setting up Congregations for purer Worship or under another Rule is plain and down-right Separation as is most evident from the Answer of the Assembly of Divines to the dissenting Brethren It is strange that this Learned Author should Cite these Men for condemning our Practice who were of the same Principles and Practice that we own and he is pleading against particularly Dr. Burgess Mr. Case Mr. Calamy Mr. Newcomen c. whom he nameth They were neither such Fools as to condemn themselves Nor such Knaves as to blame others for that wherein they allowed themselves Whereâ—ore it is evident that it was not every Separation from a true Church that they condemned for such is both innocent and necessary when a true Church will impose sinful Terms of Communion on her Members but a Separation for pretended Corruptions in a true Church which Corruptions were not imposed on the Separaters either to be practised or approved of by them and so could not become their personal Sin. This Separation they condemned and that with good reason for where the Church is a true Church and no Sin committed by them that join with it in their joining Separating can have no shew of Reason Sect. 18. He inferreth Sect. 16. From what he had said That the present Practice of Separation cannot be justified by the Principles of the Old Non-conformists Nor by the Doctrine of the Assembly of Divines The former I have disproved tho' he saith â—t's clear by undeniable Evidence The latter he saith is in effect confessed by all his Adversaries to make out which he citeth in the Margin Mr. Baxter and Dr. Owen For the latter no wonder he confess it seeing he was for that very Separation which the Assembly opposed And the former is yet alive to speak for himself And it is as little wonder that he should say so for he denieth that any of Assembly were Presbyterians I have already shewed that the the Assembly might well Assert That Separation from a true Church was Schismatical the men that they debated against separating or such Grounds as either proved the Church false or gave them no colourable ground for that Schism But they could not understand it without Exception He taketh a great deal of pains p. 75. to prove that any difference that is between our Separation and that which the Assembly condemned is but in some Circumstances that do not make the one unlawful and the other not But that it is otherwise is clear if we consider as hath been said that they had no thing Imposed on them as Duty and as Terms of Communion which had been their Personal Sin to do as we have If this make not a material and pertinent Difference I know not what can do it But saith he the Assembly used general Reasons that have equal force at all times Ans. These general reasons may suffer an Exception which they did not nor needed not mention because it was not the case in hand Nor do we make the Difference to lie between that and this time but between their and our Grounds of Non-communion Sect. 19. He saith it cometh to the same point whether the Scruples on which men separate relate to some Ceremonies required or to other Impositions as to Order and Discipline if they be such as they pretend to a
necessity of Separation 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
want not of every ministerial quality that is â—â—sirable but of such as is necessary for the Ordinances being so Administred as we may partake of them without Sin. If People do mistake in any of these and run into Separation without sufficient grounds thinking that fault of a Minister true or great or evident or intolerable which is not so we do not plead for this practice But we must not to shun that inconvenience say that it is in no case lawful I know no Truth but it may be abused by men of Corrupt minds as well as this I know there are faults in Ministers which render them in the secret Judgment of God and to the Jealousie of good Men no Ministers of Christ but of Satan which yet will not warrant Separation from them while they have Ordination unrepealed by a Church Sentence of Deprivation and Administer God's Ordinances so as the partaker of them is not involved in Sin. Gildas said of some Pastors in his time Apparet cum quem vos sacerdotes sciens ex corde dicit non esse eximium Christianum And O inimici Dei non Sacerdotes O liâ—â—atores malorum non pontifices traditores non sanctorum Apostolorum successores Impugnatores non Christi Ministri When we can apply all this to a Minister the Church ought to cast him out as unsavoury Salt But till that be done private Persons ought to withdraw from his evil Deeds but not from the Ordinances while they are pure I know this hath been and is a Controversie in our Neighbour Church of Scotland and hath given rise to much disquiet much Confusion and many Persecutions there I shall not much dip in it our Case being more clearly Stated and our withdrawing from the publick Assemblies being founded not on personal faults of Ministers but on sinful Impositions in Worship I have not met with one judicious Writer of that Nation nor one Minister that I remember of in private discourse who denieth in thesi that it is lawful to partake of the Ordinances from a Minister meerly on Accompt of his personal faults where the Ordinances that we are to partake of are incorrupted but they state the Controversie upon some Specialities in their Case One or Two little Manuscrâ—pts I have seen that in Thesi and with as much Confidence as little Reason deny the lawfulness of hearing a scandalous Minister To these I only oppose this one Argument Our Lord Commanded the Jews to receive the Ordinances from the Priests of that time who were most of them very bad men Matth. 8. 4. Luk. 17. 14. and what Christ bid them do we may lawfully do in the like case The Exceptions made against this Argument that I have met with are very Light as that the Priests were not so bad as ours 1. This is said without all Colour of Reason 2. Let them shew what degree of Scandal in a Minister will warrant such withdrawing and what not Again they object That the Ordinances could not be had but from these Priests Ans. If it had been unlawful to partake with them Christ would rather have had no Sacrifice offered than that People should sin in going about it He that preferreth Mercy to Sacrifice would never preferr Sacrifice to shunning of Sin. And beside this if the hazard of want of Ordinances could inferr the necessity of joining with these Priests so may the hazard of a sinful rending of the Church perswade to join in the Case in hand And further where the Ordinances can without any sinful circumstance be had from better hands I am far from advising any to attend the Administrations of bad men But in that Nation they had better grounds of their practice to wit Subjection to Prelacy required of them and that their faithful Pastors were turned out and others put in their Place But I leave this Debate as not being my present Work. Sect. 11. I now come to say a word of each of Mr. Baxter's four Ministerial Qualities in particular 1. Knowledge and Vtterance The Ordainers are the Authoritative Judges of these and the People are not without very great and manifest cause to question what is in this done by the Guides of the Church yet must they see with their own Eyes and lament the defects of this kind that they evidently see but not separate while the Ordinances are not intolerably depraved tho' there be considerable defects The Dr. never heard that the Apostle bid People turn away from their Minister for want of Vtterance neither was such a Command needful Nature and Reason injoining That if a man cannot speak audibly and intelligible People should not come to hear a noise so that they cannot tell what is uttered His declamation against Peoples judging of a Minister's Knowledge is out of the way we do not make them Triers as he supposeth neither give them Authority and we think for all his scorn that tho' many â—annot well discern a Minister's Knowledge in Controverise yet most can tell whether he understandeth the plain Truths of the Gospel when they hear him discourse of them If men by prejudices or want of due application of their minds as the Dr. speaketh mistake about these I shall hardly call them very good men as he supposeth they may be The Second Quality is That a Minister be not Heretical Except Taunts and personal Reflections on Mr. B. I see not what the Dr. answereth to this We do not say That Peoples thinking a man Heretical when he crosseth their humours is a good ground to separate on as the Dr. would have it thought neither is it needful for discerning this that all the People be Learned Divines or have read Epiphanius and Binnius as he talketh but we think they that diligently read the Scripture and pray for spiritual Understanding may discern when manifest Errour against the Foundation of Christian Doctrine is taught and where they find this to be the way of a Minister may withdraw from him I wish the Dr. would speak more plain that we might see his mind more clearly than we can do by these jeers Doth he think there are none Learned among the People or Doth he think that none of them that want Literature can discern Truth from Errour in any Case or Doth he think dangerous Errour being discerned to be ordinarily preached People should attend on that Preaching instead of the wholsome Food of their Souls and not seek better means unless the Bishops will give leave If he be not positive in all these he saith nothing against Mr. B. nor Us in this matter Sect. 12. The Third Quality is That Ministers be not Opposers of Godliness That is not to be understood of what people will call so without cause nor of suspected malignity nor of open opposing of it in the mans private actings by word or deed nor of close hints in Sermons against it nor breaking out sometimes into more open maligning of it But when
divided into Provinces If a Minister in England should say there are many Ministers in our Country it will not prove that they were under his Charge Vuler mentioneth Cresceus who had 120 Bishops under him the Dr. should have proved that he had sole jurisdiction over them and all their Churches or that he could act any thing in Church matters without them and so that he was more than president in their meeting when they came together about the Affairs of the Church These are the Goodly Arguments from Antiquity by which Men think to wreath on our Necks the Yoak of Domination Sect. 5. He bringeth another proof for his Diocesan Bishop Sect. 20. from Athanasius his having charge over the Church of Alexandira and these of Maraeotis And 1. Epiphamus saith that Athanasius did often visit Neighbour Churches especially those of Maraeotis Ans. So have many Presbyterian Ministers done to Neighbouring Parishes that were destitute and yet never pretended to Episcopal Power over them That this was an Act of Charity not of Episcopal Authority appeareth because Epiphamus calleth them Neighbour Churches not a part of Athanasiu's Church and that he mentioneth other Neighbour Churches besides these of Maraeotis which Athanasius saith were subject to him Next Athanasius saith Maraeotis is a region belonging to Alexandria which never had neither Bishop nor Suffragan in it but all the Churches there are immediately subject to the Bishop of Alexandria but every Presbyter is fixed in his particular Village Ans. Maraeotis or Mâ—ria as Ptolomy calleth it is a Lake not far from Alexandria now called Lago 〈◊〉 I suppose Athanasius means the Country about that Lake which it seems had then few Churches and Christians and therefore it was very fit they should Associate for Discipline with these of Alexandria being very near to it their Subjection to the Bishop of Alexandria doth not prove his sole jurisdiction over them but only that they were so by the Association of Presbyters of which the Bishop of Alexandria was Moderator Subjâ—cton to a Bishop in our days signifieth to be under his Jurisdiction by himself because men have set up such Bishops but it cannot be made to signifie the same in the Dialect of these times unless it were Aliunde proved that they were such Bishops which is not done by such an Argument as this wherefore I deny the Drs third Consequence that he draweth from this passage p. 254. to wit That these were under the mediate inspection of the Bishop of Alexandria so that the whole Government belongeth to him There is not the lest shadow of reason for such an inference his disputation that followeth about the Christians of Alexandria meetâ—ng in Diverse Assemblies I meddle not with it is nothing against us whether it weâ—e so or otherwise Sect. 6. The last proof that he bringeth is out of Theodoret which he saith is plain enough of it self to shew the great extent of Diocesan Poweâ— he saith he had the pâ—storal charge of 800. he should have said 80 Churches and that so many Parishes were in his Diocess The Dr. insulteth much on this Testimony but without cause for 1. Theodoret lived in the fifth century and we deny not but by that time Episcopal Ambition had in some places encroached on the Government instituted by Christ and which had been kept more intire in former Ages 2. It is much suspected by learned Men that Theodorets Epistles are not genuine and the Dr. doth not deny that Hereticks had feigned Epistles in Theodorets name as Leontius saith which doth darogate much from the credit of these that cannot be well proved to be true 3. Theodoret doth not say that he had the Pastoral charge of these Churches but that he had been Pastor in them the former Expression looketh like a sole power in him and therefore the Dr. thought fit so to vary the phrase the other hinteth no more power then is consistant with a party every Minister being a Pastor in the Churches to whose Association he belongeth 4. But whatever be in that this sheweth the extent of Theodorets Power as to place or bounds but doth not prove that he alone exercised that power and therefore is no proof of a Diocesan Bishop Sect. 7. Before I proceed I shall return to examine the Doctor 's Allegations for Diocesan Power p. 230. which I above referred to this place He asserteth That the Presbyters and whole Church were under the particular Care and Government of Cyprian This Assertion is too big for the Proofs that he bringeth for it to wit That Cyprian reproveth some of the Presbyters for receiving Penitents without consulting him and complaineth of the Affront done to his Place as Bishop and dischargeth the like to be done for the future Lucian saith that the Martyrs had agreed that the Lapsed should be received on Repentance but their Cause was to be heard before the Bishop and several Passages to this purpose To all which I. A. by denying the Consequence Cyprian as I cited above did not take on him to receive the Lapsed without the Presbyters Will it thence follow that he had no Power at all But it was solely in them even so that the Presbyters especially that some of them as the Dr. himself states the Case might not do it without Cyprian doth not prove that the Presbyters and whole Church were under his Government It amounteth to no more but this that in a Presbytery regularly constituted especially where they have devolved the Power of calling and presiding in their Meetings on a fixed and constant Moderator it is very irregular that a part should meet about Discipline without the rest and particularly without Consulting him whom they have so chosen Beside I will not deny but Cyprian sheweth too much Zeal in this Cause and might possibly attempt to stretch his Power a little too far as afterward many did He was a holy and meek Man but such may be a little too high To this same purpose are his other Citations of Moses and Maximus commending Cyprian for not being wanting to his Office. Cyprian's Epistle to the Clergy of Carthage that the Dr. citeth sheweth there were Disorders committed in the Matter of receiving the Lapsed in that not only some Presbyters took it on them without a regular Meeting of the whole but even Deacons medled with it which was out of their way His Citation of the Roman Clergy commending the Martyrs for not taking on them the Discipline of the Church is wholly out of the way for none ever supposed that every Martyr had Church-Power That they delayed some parts of Discipline till they had a new Bishop proveth as little as the rest for it is fit one should moderate in their Meetings and Custom had obtained that he should be fixed in that Office which was not from the beginning Cyprians appointing some to visit when he could not do it by reason of Persecution neither is a precedent for our Bishops doing their
Commanded by God nor necessarily Connected with the Souls exercise in Worship by nature and dictated by it nor is by civil custom made a fit expression of the inward exercise of the Soul in that Worship but is only imposed by the Will of man is unlawful to be used in that Worship but Kneeling in the Act of receiving the Sacrament is such Ergo c. The major is clear for that must in that case be Will-worship the minor is proved by what is said and the conclusion followeth â—iâ—syllogistica Sect. 11. Another ground of our scruple is this Practice is unprecedented in the Apostolick and purest Primitive Church Christ with his Disciples Sate or leaned they used the table gesture then made decent by civil custom and yet they used as much humility in receiving and knew as well what was fit and decent as we now do or can In after Ages this Practice was not used it is well known that in Tertullians time and till the beginning of the Fifth Century they did not use to Kneel on any Lords Day between Easter and Pentecost so much as at Prayer and the Canon of the Famous First Council of Nice did forbid it how then did they make the Communion Kneeling A third ground is this Kneeling is a Religious Adoration before a Creature with a Religious respect to the Creature but this is unlawful c. The first proposition is clear for it is with respect to the Consecrated Elements before them that we Kneel and it will not be denyed that we there adore God Religiously The second proposition I prove because Protestants do generaly condemn Praying before an Image as on other accounts so on this because it is an adoring of God before a Creature with a Religious respect to it let our Brethren shew us what the more moderate of the Papists give to their Images that we do not give to the Consecrated Elements We use the one as a a stated motive of Worship as they do the other they deny that they give any Worship to the Image as we do with reference to the Elements A fourth Ground is this Practice as acknowledged by its Patrons to be Indifferent hath been grosly abused to Idolatry the Papists in the same external way worshiping the Hoste And it is known that this Practice came in with the belief of Christs Bodily presence in the Sacrament and the Papists profess that if they did not believe that they would not so Kneel and is it fit that we should so symbolize with them which by this Practice we do to that degree that it is not easy to distinguish our Adoration from theirs by the spectators of both These grounds I have but hinted being spoken to more largely by others Sect. 12. He debateth next with Mr. A. pag. 386. for saying that on the same reason that the Church imposeth these Ceremonies she may impose some use of Images c. to which the Dr. bringeth three Answers filling four Pages All this discourse might have been waved for neither Mr. A. nor any of us did ever make that a ground of Separation tho' we plead against the Ceremonies on that ground If they will remove the present Ceremonies we shall not for the asserting an Imposing power leave them nor out of fear of what may come Sect. 13. The last plea for Separation that the Dr. first deviseth and then refuteth is Sect. 38. That there is a parity of reason for our separating from the Church of England and from the Protestants separating from the Church of Rome and this Plea he imputeth to Mr. A. in his Preface he should have said Epistle Dedicatory to Mischief of Impositions but I do not find that Mr. A. or any other ever used such a plea. All that he saith there is ad hominem against the Dr's ordinary crying out on us for Separating from a true Church whereas the Dr. himself had owned Rome to be a true Church Ration account p. 293. And def against T. G. p. 785. and yet alloweth Separation from that Church Wherefore I shall no further consider any thing that he saith on that head And I conclude with the Dr. and declare as he doth to the contrary that I have examined all that he hath said on the present Subject and do find still remaining sufficient Plea to justify the present practice of Non-conformists in not joyning with the Church of England but Worshiping God in Meeting apart from it Sect. 14. The Learned Dr. is pleased to append to his Book to set it off 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 three Letters of three French Divines Printed first in French and then in English ad pompam for it is little ad pugnam But he might know what ever difference we give to learned and good men their authority without Scripture proof which we yet desiderate will not prevail with us to alter our opinion or practice let the Dr. call it obstinacy or by what name he pleaseth The first of them is from Monsieur le Moyne professor of Divinity in Leyden to the Bp. of London the authority of which Letter not of the learned Author of it we have good cause to neglect because it is apparent to any that read it that it is written by a stranger to us upon gross mis-information of our principles For he saith page 404. that he could not have perswaded himself that there had been any who believed that a man could not be saved in the Communion of the Church of England And I join with him so far that I know not nor hear of one Non-conformist of that opinion but thus it seems we are by our Brethren represented abroad and then precarious Letters got by such means must be produced as witnesses against us He also representeth us as if we condemned all to hell that use the Ceremonies page 405. and the same he saith about the Church-Discipline ibid. and that we imagine that we are the only men in England yea in the Christian World that are predestinated to eternal happiness and that hold truths necessary to Salvation as they ought to be held so he page 408. he also page 409. tells us of a Non-conformist-Meeting he was at in London where he exposeth the Meeting and Preacher as very ridiculous and his calling the Preacher one of the most famous Non-conformists sheweth him to be either a very great stranger to them or somewhat that is worse Let any now judge whether such a Testimony be to be received against us Sect. 15. The second Letter from Monsieur de l' Angle speaks the Reverend and Learned Author of it to be an ingenious and sober Person but in some things misinformed by the Episcopal Party He lamenteth our Divisions so do we he is for complyance with the Ceremonies being setled but is far enough from approving of them The former part of this I impute to his being less concern'd to consider these things than we are He stateth our Separation mainly
this is manifestly the ordinary strain of his preaching we say in that Case people may withdraw from a man for here the Ordinance of Preaching is wholly inverted and turned against that which it was appointed to promote There is as good ground in this case to desert a Minister as there is in a besieged Garrison for the Souldiers to desert their Commander when he turneth the Guns that are on the Walls from the Enemy upon the Town The Dr. rejecteth this as before by tart Reflection on Mr. B. which whatever it may be ad hominem is nothing ad rem If Mr B. hath sharply reproved some for Censoriousness Pride Divisions c. and these will count this opposing of Godliness Doth this peevish mistake of theirs prove that there can be no such thing really committed by a Minister or if it be that it should not be resented by the Hearers Or if Mr. B. sometimes speak at this rate is this his ordinary Doctrine or when men make Railing their ordinary Doctrine Should people sit and hear that as God's Ordinance for their Souls edification The Fourth Quality That Ministers be not of a scandalous Life Of this the Dr. saith nothing and I shall say little more than is already said We do not hold That personal faults in a Minister where the Ordinances are incorrupted is a sufficient ground of Separation from him But it cannot but be a sad Grievance and make people wait on the Ministry of such a person with less comfort and satisfaction and may warrant people that regard the advantage of their Souls to lay hold on the first opportunity that they can get to live under a Ministry that is more like to be blessed Sect. 13. He chargeth the Non-conformists without exception Sect. 10. with insinuating that the whole body of the conforming Clergy is guilty of such faults as the people may lawfully separate A most false Assertion and unjust Charge Not one Non-conformist that ever I read or met with hath said or written this or words to this effect but they do generally disclaim it But the Dr. undertaketh to prove it by some particulars 1. They make Conformity it self to be a very scandalous thing and then tell the people over and over again That it is no sin to separate from scandalous Priests especially where the Scandal is so notorious I am astonished to read this from the Pen of one whom I am loath to have an harsh thought against We do indeed think Conformity a Sin and being open it cannot but be a Scandal and we think that in some it arising from a regardlesness of knowing what is right becometh yet more scandalous but none of us ever thought that a mistake of this nature in men otherwise sober and conscientious was a very scandalous thing or that it was such a scandal as by it self could warrant Separation But let the Dr. tell us of any one of our way that ever held this general Thesis That it is no Sin to separate from scandalous Priests when the Scandal is notorious I am sure Mr. B. whom he only citeth on this occasion teacheth the contrary oftner than once particularly Christ. Direct p. 718. and his looking on Conformity as Sin and an aggravated Sin and the pressing of it as that Sin which they charge us with to wit Schismaticalness do no way prove what the Dr. asserteth When Mr. B. saith p. 133. Can you wonder if the people chuse more faithful Pastors It doth not make the Clergy's Conformity the true Reason nor the main Reason neither of Separation yea nor doth it import an Approbation of Separation tho' he doth elsewhere shew his Approbation of it but only sheweth how you tempt the people to it Sect. 14. Another Argument to prove his charge is Sect. 11. That we count most of the present Ministers of the Church of England Vsurpers and that from such we may lawfully separate Ans. We deny both parts of his Assertion whatever Usurpation some of them may be guilty of We know most of them have the tacite at least consent of the people a post facto and therefore however they might be guilty of intrusion in their entry in their continuing in their places they are no Usurpers Neither do we own it to be lawful to separate from every Minister that is an Usurper meerly on the account of his Usurpation To clear this I shall lay down our opinion about this in these few Assertions 1. The regular way of entring into the Ministry is by the Election or Call of the People over whom he is to have charge and the potestative Mission or Ordination of the Pastors of the Church This will fall in afterward to be debated 2. It is consequential to this That whoever do not enter this way into the Ministry are in some degree or other Intruders into that Work. 3. Though the express Call of the people and their free consent be needful to the more orderly Entrance of a Minister among them yet if they implicitely shew their consent and they being prelimitted by the Presentation of a Patron or Commands of the Magistrate if they consent that is enough to the substance of a Call and maketh the Minister that so entereth no Usurper The reason is because he is only to consider the Will and Consent sufficiently declared not the motives nor considerations that influence their will. Indeed if the man had any hand by undue means to influence them to consent against their Duty and right Reason he is in so far guilty before God But this doth not nullifie his Call which consisteth in the peoples consent 4. There are three sorts of Usurpers of the Ministerial Office or Work. 1. Such as fall upon that Work without a Call from a people or Ordination by Ministers 2. Such as do it upon a peoples Call but have no Ordination or potestative Mission by those in Authority the Church for that end 3. Such as have Ordination but take the Charge of a particular Flock wholly without consent or against their will. The two former sorts usurp the Office the third usurpeth that particular Charge that he hath no right to 5. The Presentation of a Patron to the Living the Civil Laws of men injoining or owning a mans entrance into a place due Ordination Institution and Induction and what else men please to devise can never make him the Pastor of such a particular people without their consent some way had but without it he is still an Usurper This doth follow from the peoples right of chusing their Pastors which is to be afterward discoursed 6. It is lawful to Separate from usurping Ministers of the first and second sort because they are no Ministers they have only the name of Ministers like those that called themselves Apostles and were not Rev. 2. 2. I hope the Dr. will not deny this 7. When a Minister is obtruded on a People against their will and so is an Usurper of
the 3d. Sort if there be no other cause of separating from him but that I think under correction of the more Wise and Learned that they should rather cede of their right with a Salvo than break the Peace and Unity of the Church or disoblige the Magistrate and therefore they ought to give their consent By this means their right that Christ hath given them is not alienated it being by them on that occasion Asserted and the Rending of the Church is prevented Sect. 15. Let us now hear what the Dr. will say to make good against us his charge of our separating on this Head. He saith They have a Legal Establishment and Law and Vsurpation are contraries Ans. Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of a Civil Office are contrary Also Establishment by the Gospel and Usurpation of a Church-Office are inconsistent but Establishment by a Civil Law and Usurpation of an Office in the Church are very consistent one with another Because the Office of the Ministry is no institution of Man but of Christ and he giveth Laws to regulate that and other affairs in his House and hath not left these to be ordered by the Laws of men I thought the Dr. had been for Episcopal Government in the Church not for Erastianism Mr. B. is cited p. 134. asserting That all that come into the places of Ejected Ministers the people not consenting are Vsurpers that the Magistrate's Imposition maketh not such true Pastors of that Church without or before the Peoples consent nor will it always oblige the People to consent and forsake their former Pastors nor prove them Schismatical because they do it not For disproving of this the Dr. first leaveth it to others to judge of the dangerous Consequences of this an Act being passed by King and Parliament for removing of some Pastors and putting in others And I desire that these others who judge of this matter may consider that the ordering of the Ministerial Call and the fixing a Religion between Pastor and People do fall directly under the Cognizance and Laws of him who is the Head and Lawgiver in his Church even Jesus Christ and under the Laws of men only as the Civil Peace may be concerned therein and let them also consider that we by owning or disowning a Pastoral Relation which the Magistrate hath passed an Act for or against do manage our principle and order our practice with that peaceableness and caution that the Magistrate may as little as possible either know it or be offended at it and if we be Convicted of a Transgression of the Magistrate's Law we patiently suffer the Penalties Let them I say Consider these things and withal Consider that to differ from the Magistrate in Principle and Practice of Religion was the Lot of the Primitive Christians and then let them judge if they be Impartial Men whether any such dismal consequences as the Dr. insinuateth are like to follow Sect. 16. He objecteth next On those Grounds when Solomon deprived Abiathar and put Zadock is his room any part of the People might have pleaded they never consented to Zadock's coming in The Question is whether it belonged to the King or the People Ans. There is so little shadow of Reason or affinity to the question in Hand in this Argument that it is no small Derogation from the understanding of so Learned a Man once to mention it for the chusing of a High-Priest belonged neither to King nor People but the Succession was fixed in one Family by the Lord and it was neither in the Power of the King nor People to chuse any but the nearest Heir of that Lin◠Wherefore what Solomon did in this Case was no more but to inflict a Civil Punishment on Abiathar to wit Exile from Jerusalem where only the Office of High-Priest could be Exercised and Confinement to Anathoth And this was done for his Accession to Treason against Solomon And Solomon's putting Zadock in his place was no more but obeying the Commandment of God who had promised the Priest-hood to Phinehas whose nearest Heir Zadock was And it is the opinion of many Divines that Abiathar's right to the Priesthood was not so good as Zadock's Another Argument like the rest he hath p. 135. is That it follows that a smaller part of the People may disown the Publick Acts of Parliament and chuse other Governours in opposition to those Established by Law and they may do it in one case as well as in another Which makes me wonder saith he at those who dare call them Vsurpers who enjoy their places by the same Laws that any men do enjoy their Estates This is a Confounding of things most disparate one from another a taking away all distinction of Civil and Church power We utterly deny his consequence That because people notwithstanding of an Act of Parliament may adhere to their Pastors therefore they may chuse other civil Governours for of these he must speak or speak nothing to the purpose They may not do it in the one case as in the other because the one case is regulated by Christ's Law the other by Mens Law. But I now smell out a mistake in the Dr. that maketh such Choler and Zeal against us That we count them Usurpers of their places that is their Benefices Let him no more fear that we own their Title to these to be as good as Men have to their Estates both being disposable by the same Law But all that we have said is about their Usurping the Charge of Souls Of which we Assert two things 1. That there is no necessary Connexion de facto between a good Title to the one and to the other though de jure I mean divino beneficium sequitur officium 2. That the same Law may give a Title to an Ecclesiastick Estate which giveth Title to other Estates but another Law and not that must give a Title to having the charge of Souls and must make a Relation between Pastor and People And the reason of this Difference I bring from that famous saying of Constantine the Great to the Church-men that they were 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 but the 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Sect. 17. He hath yet another Argument to wit That this overthroweth the Reformation for the Papists had the very same Plea that these Men have now to wit that the Magistrate had no Power to dissolve the Relation between them and their former Church-guides Ans. If the Dr. will say that the Popish Clergy had no otherwise forfeited their Title to the charge of Souls than by the Magistrates Law then their Plea and ours were the same But I suppose he as well as we will fix that forfeiture on another Foundation to wit their Heresy and Idolatry that they led the People into warranted the People to withdraw from them as none of Christ's Ministers and disobliged the People from owning any further Relation to them as their Pastors And this not only warranted