validity of Foreign Ordinations And thus having separated their Cause from that of other Protestants I proceed to examine what he urges for it and his first Reason is this I. That the word of God makes not difference between the Bishop and the Presbyter or Pastor of a Church and he cites those Texts Acts 20.7.28 and Tit. 1.5 6 7. to prove that those Names are promiscuously used Three ways have been taken to Answer this Objection 1. That both the Names of Bishop and Presbyter in Scripture denote always the Prelatical Bishop and not the Modern Presbyter 2. That even in Scripture the Names are so distinguished that a mere Presbyter alone is never call'd a Bishop tho' a Bishop is often call'd a Presbyter Both these Opinions have been well defended * By Dr. Hammond and Dr. Taylor and perhaps it is impossible to consute them but to cut off all superfluous Disputes it is enough to Answer 3. That tho' the Names of Bishop and Presbyter are not distinct in Scripture yet it is a very fallacious way of arguing from the indistinction of Names to infer the Identity of Offices St. John the Apostle calls himself twice a * 2d Ep. John v. 1. 3d Ep. v. 1. Presbyter †Rom. 16.7 Andronious Junia and * Phil. 2.25 Epapheaditus who according to this Minister's opinion were only Presbyters are reciprocally call'd Apostles Are the Offices of an Apostle and Presbyter therefore really the same This one instance is a clear Demonstration of the Falshood of that Consequence Though there was a confusion of Names there was yet a distinction of Offices and if that can be proved viz. That in the Apostolical Churches some single Persons had a Pre-eminency of Power and Authority over the other Presbyters it will necessarily follow that that Office to which the Name of Bishops is now appropriated is at least of Apostolical Institution Timothy and Titus * See Jus Divinum Ministerii Anglicani p. 71 72. are granted by all sides to have had such a Superiority and the Presbyterians only pretend that their Office was extraordinary and expired with them but this is affirmed without sufficient Proof for what though Timothy be required to do the Work of an Evangelist can they prove that this signifies any more than a Preacher of the Gospel And if it could be proved to be a Temporary Office how does it appear that his Episcopal Power was a part of that Office or that it was not distinct and separate from it On the contrary it may be proved by a Cloud of Witnesses that this Power was not Temporary but was every where derived by Succession upon single Persons and particulably as to the Succession of Timothy and Titus we have the Confession of Du Moulin * In his 3d. Ep. to Bishop Andrews p. 181 182. That the Episcopal Order was of Apostolical institution and that what name soever we give to Timothy and Titus whether Bishops or Evangelists it is manife that they had Bishops for their Successors and Heirs of their pre-eminency And in fine this precarious Pretence of extraordinary Offices may with equal reason be urg'd as we find it is by Anabaptists Quakers and Socinians against the whole Order of the Ministry and if it be admitted as Mr. * In his Christian Directory cited in the Vnreason of Separ p. 264. Baxter once confess'd we leave room for andaecious Wits to question other Gospel Institutions at Pastors and Sacraments and to say they were but for one Age. The Sum is this there is clear Evldence in Scripture that there were some Officers who had Power of Jurisdiction over Presbyters and therefore the Texts which he produces to shew the Community of Names can be no Argument against it But to justifie Ordination by Presbyter he cites 1 Tim. 4.14 where it is intimated that Timothy was ordained by the laying on of the hands of the Presbytery To this it is answered * On the brief Account of Church Government in Answer to the writings of the Presbyterians p. 195. c. 1. That Presbytery there is taken for the Office of a Presbyter and so the Sense runs thus neglect not the Gift or Office of a Presbyter which was given thee by Prophecy with the Imposition of hands and this Sense is warranted by the Authority of * Calv. Instit lib. 4. c. 3. sect 16. Calvin and of St. * St Jerom. in Locum Jerome long before him 2. If Presbytery be taken for the Ordainers it may nevertheless be understood of such Presbyters as had a Superior Power over others for as Apostles and Bishops are sometimes called Presbyters so might they Collectively be called Presbytery and accordingly it is observed that the Apostles themselves are called by St Ignatius the Presbytery of the Church 3. It is evident from 2 Tim. 1.6 that St. Paul was the principal if not the only 〈◊〉 ordainer of him and surely it is no good consequence that if Presbyters may assist an Apostle or a Bishop at an Ordmation therefore they may ordain without him He conchides that Augustine Jerome and Chrysostome with many other Greeks and Latins are of his Judgment but he produces no passages out of any of these Authours but asserts roundly that they are all of his mind and 't is as easie to answer that they are all against him however when he shall produce his Testimonies it will be time enough to examine them Secondly He proceeds to justifie his Orders by the Authority of our own and Foreign Churches All our learned Divines at the Reformation from Popery beld that Ordination by the Pastors of Churches he means Presbyters was valid and good Thus he affirms on without proving many Greeks and Latines and all our Divines are only consident Phrases and ought to pass for nothing in short I defie him to produce any one of those Divines that has allowed of Presbyterian Ordinations made in a Schismatical opposition to Bishops and without the Case of necessity But he adds The Twenty third Article of Ministring in the Congregation seems to speak as much That Article declares That it is not lawful to exercise the Ministry without a lawful Calling and that those are lawfully called who are called by Men who have publick Authority given them in the * Quibus potestas publice concessa est in Ecclesia Art Edit 1552 1562. Congnegation i.e. the Church to do it And how impertinent is this Allegation was publick Authority ever given in our Church to Presbyters to ordain Priests or Deacons on the contrary it is expressy provided in the Preface to the * Approved Art 36. and established by Acts of Parl. Reg. Edw. 6. Eliz. p. 58. Form of Ordination in our Liturgy that whereas it is evident unto all Men diligently reading Holy Scripture and ancient Authors that from the Apostles time there hath been these Orders of Ministers in Christs Church Bishops Priests and
AN ANSWER TO THE Call to Humiliation OR A VINDICATION OF THE Church of England From the Reproaches and Objections of W. Woodward in Two Fast Sermons Preach'd in his Conventicle at Lemster in the County of Hereford and afterwards Published by him Printed for Edward Robinson Junior Bookseller in Ludlow 1691. AN ANSWER TO THE Call to HVMILIATION OR A Vindication of the Church of England WHEN I first met with this importunate Call to Humiliation I wonder'd how it came into the Head of that Minister to call upon the Church of England in a Conventicle he might as well have call'd upon the Socinian Church in Poland or the Quakers in Pensylvania How absurd was it to summon the Church of England to the Stool of Repentance in a Presbyterian Assembly at Lemster and to proclaim a Fast for Persecution to those whom he pretends were persecuted by her But thô the Church was out of his Audience yet it was matter of great Edification to his Hearers to calumniate and reproach her and I presume at the next gathering he was well rewarded for it See how this Minister keeps his Days of Humiliation he Fasts notoriously for Strife and Debate instead of healing our Wounds he enlarges and enflames them he sets forth the Sufferings of his Dissenters with Hyperbole's and lying aggravations to what purpose but to exulcerate and enrage them as if he were sent in the Spirit of Elijah he calls in effect for Fire from Heaven upon us The Prophanation of our Fast Day was not enough for his Invectives withal he could find but little work of Humiliation for his own Sectaries but with loads of Sackcloth and Ashes he overwhelms our Church and in a word he has laid out his whole Gift of Calling and Clamouring and Railing upon it The best Apology against such a Libel would be Patience and Silence and the best Answer that which Mr. Hooker made to certain Reasons and Raileries of the Puritans to his Reasons No and to his Raileries Nothing But there is sometimes a necessity of answering some Persons according to their folly the applause and triumph with which this Pamphlet has been cried up by his followers the Confidence wherewith they pronounce every thing unanswerable that is not answer'd and the Complement of * p. 27. Dumb Dogs which this Holy Rabshakeh has bestowed upon us do make it necessary to say something in our vindication and to shew how easie it is to defend our Church against the feeble Assaults of a Lemster Conventicle In answer to his Two Sermons as he calls them I will consider 1. His Declamations about Persecution 2. The Reasons and Objections which he pleads for his Non-conformity Days of Humiliation are at all times necessary to the Church of Christ which while it is Militant will be never so far without Spot and Blemish as not to stand in need of publick Explations but when the Judgments of God are either imminent or present and the unbounded wickedness of a Nation do force them down from Heaven then certainly is the time to weep to Sanctify a Fast and to call all the Inhabitants of the Land to a Publick Repentance Our Church on such occasions hath contented her Self to follow the example of Religious Men in Scripture and to prescribe such general Confessions as are universally true of all and particularly applicable to the Case of every one there is a Confession in that last Office so full and comprehensive that no one who is not much in love with Cavil can accuse the insufficiency of it But this Minister is dissatisfied with it he hath searched among * See p. 10 11. the accursed stuff as he stiles it of Ecclesiastical Affairs and after much pains in rummaging * See p. 10 11. he finds that the accursed thing * See p. 10 11. lies hid under the covering of Decency and Order Penal Laws Laws for Vniformity Subscriptions Declarations Liturgies Articles Laws for Ceremonies and Forms of Prayer Thus one whole Constitution is accursed in his Opinion even the Articles of our Religion are not excepted thô approv'd by all the Protestant Churches and Seal'd with the Blood of Martyrs and the Prayers of all Churches for at least 1â—00 Years together have been nothing but Curses and as Achan's Sacriledge an Abomination to the Lord. But Persecution is the great Rock of Offence and he is very angry at the Compilers of the Office because they have not mention'd it in the Confession he cannot forgive a certain * The Bishop of Sarum Bishop in particular who he thinks assisted in composing the Form and had before Declar'd that Persecution had not a little contributed to fill up the measures of the sins of a Church See his Ep. Ded. and p. 11. and that they who were guilty ought seriously to profess their Repentance of it But he observes That he said this before he was a Bishop which is to insinuate that it is no wonder he should now prevaricate and that he was fall'n from Grace by taking a Bishoprick on him But here he had an occasion of shewing his Spight at the Order and even a Reconciling Bishop could have no Quarter from him Now for once let Persecution be as heinous a Sin as he can make it and let it be granted that many Church men have been guilty of it Yet Why must it be particularly confess'd in a general Humiliation Why more than Drunkenness Perjury Blasphemy or Whoredom Would he have every individual Confess that he has been a Persecutor a Drunkard a Blasphemer and a Whoremaster If many are innocent of these Crimes so they are of Persecution There are thousands of Congregations that never persecuted any one and yet this Vnjust Judge would force them to plead Guilty of it Be the Sin never so Epidemical yet why should I confess it if I am not Guilty And as for those that are let him read over the Confessions and he will find they are in general Expressions included in it and general Confessions are sufficient because no others can be accommodated to so many millions of Christians but nothing will please that Minister unless the whole Church lye prostrate at his Feet and submit to the Discipline he imposes and then perhaps he would think her sufficiently humbled and condescend to pardon her Let us now reflect a little on the extremity of their Sufferings as he is pleas'd to represent them and one single Paragraph out of all his Tragical Aggravations will be sufficient He assures us * p. 4. That it is as clear as the Sun that for near 30 years last past 1600 Ministers of the Gospel have suffer'd very hard things upon the account of Conscience by reason of great Fines and long Imprisonments At the Restauration there were many Mininsters ejected who had either intruded themselves into the Freeholds of others or had Vsurp'd their Benefices in the times of Schism and Rebellion without lawful Qualisications
so inhumane as to deny him the attendance of so much as one Chaplain for the performance of Divine offices thô the Good King did often and earnestly Request it which as himself observes in his * In his 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Meditations on it was a piece of Rigor and Barbarisme greater than is ever us'd by Christians to the meanest prisoners and greatest malefactors Thus it was that they dealt with their Sovereign and the whole Houshold were Treated no better than the Master of it It is known to all the World how the Episcopal Party were plundred Sequestred Decimated Imprisoned and totally Ruin'd by them With what rigor their rebellious Oaths Covenants Engagements and Abjurations were impos'd and that they were all ejected out of the Churches Colledges Schools and Universities The Lord * Survey of the Leviathan p. 305 Clarendon tells us That the Reverend Bishops who were left alive and out of prison being strip'd of all that was their own preserved themselves from Famine by stooping to the lowest Offices of Teaching Schools and Officiating in private Families for their Bread which together with the Alms of Charitable Persous was the only portion of the poor Bishops and all the faithful Clergy of the Church of England * His Preface to Bishop Mortons defence of Episcopacy p. 39. Sir Henry Yelverton computes and he thought that he was not mistaken that there were 8000 who forsook all for the Covenant and of an 729 Parishes within the Bills of Mortality in Londom 15 were ejected besides the Prebends of St. Pauls and Westminster And now it will not be improper to add the Reply of Arch-Bishop Bramhal to Mr. Baxter's Complaint That the most Learned Godly Painful and Peaceable Men were ejected because they durst not use the Ceremonies Let Mr. B. says he * P. 643. of his Works sum up into one Catalogue all the Nonconformists throughout the Kingdom of England ever since the beginning of the Reformation who have been cast aside at any time because they durst not use the Ceremonies I dare abate him all the rest of the Kingdom and only exhibit the Martyrologies of London and the Two Vniversities or a List of those who in these late intestine Wars have been imprison'd and banish'd by his Party in these three places alone or left to the merciless World to beg their Bread for no other Crime but Loyalty and because they stood affectod to the Ancient Rites and Ceremonies of the Church of England and they shall double them for Number and for Learning Piety Industry and the love of Peace exceed them incomparably This is an assertion that shall stand unconfuted for ever and let every one now judge between the Church of England and the Separatists which have been the greatest Persecutors Thus have I been forced to retort the accusation and to make it good by undeniable Proofs against them that I might silence if possible their Hypocritical Clamours and convince their Followers that they are inexcusable in Judging that in others which they do themselves and that of all men they are the unsittest to pull the Mote out of the Churches Eye when the Beam is in their own If Persecution be the accursed Thing why have not the Dissenters themseves appointed Days of Humiliation for it Why do they not give it a Place in their Confessions Is it not strange that in 40 years time they should not express their Repentance And to use this Ministers Expression is it not fit that for one Tear of the Church of England they should drop ten nay an hundred for one It will be objected that some of them of late years have condemn'd all Persecution for Religion but have they ever kept a Day of Humiliation for it Do they not think themselves bound by Covenant to extirpate the whole Government of the Church of England And notwithstanding the Clamours of that Party against Persecution is it not evident that where-ever they get Power they immediately persecute We have two Books already of the History of their Persecutions in Scotland and when to the extirpation of all the Bishops the ruin of Six hundred Ministers and the Desolation of four Universities they shall add the Destruction of the miserable Reliques of that Church I will not say their Story will be much greater than Fox's Martyrology but I think the Dissenters Sufferings will be but an Enchiridion to it In the mean time we have a fair Specimen however of the moderation of that Party whose tender Mercies have been always cruel and a clear Demonstration of what may be expected by us if GOD in His just Judgments should deliver up our Church unto their Fury And yet these are the men that exclaim against Persecution and cry out against the Church of England as cruel and tyrannical but let them remember that Reflection which was long since extorted by their Clamours * Dr. St. Serm. on the Mischief of Separ p. 55. That they want the Ingenuity of Adonibezek to reflect on the Thumbs and Toes which they have cut off from others and think themselves bound to do it again if it were in their Power But after all this Minister though he furiously declaims against Persecution and with so much Malice and Acrimony arraigns the Church of England for it yet if his invectives be well considered one shall find that he no where declares for Liberty of Conscience and that no one ought to be perfecuted for his Religion When he condemns Persecution he adds always * See p. 3 4 6 8 11. for the Truth which is a plain Intimation that Persecution for Error he accounts Lawful if he really does not to what purpose is that Limitation Why did he not openly condemn all Punishments for Conscience but then he would have condemned the constant Doctrine of his Party and though he was too wary to do that yet it would have spoyl'd the design his Sermons if he had spoke out honestly and asserted the Lawfulness of persecuting men for their Errors But if this be his Judgment and that Limitation is a strong Presumption of it then the sum of all is this That the Presbyterians may lawfully persecute all other Churches but must never be persecuted themselves by any because all other Churches are erroneous and the whole Inelosure of Truth is theirs and it is only the Persecution of Truth that is condemned by them It is evident that he himself founds the Iniquity of the severe Proceedings against them upon this ground alone that they suffered for the Truth For to this Objection * p. 11. that the Nonconformists have been buffeted for their Faults his only Reply is this Let 's have a fair Hearing before we be judged the Persecution of Truth is a great Sin wherever 't is found then he immediately proposes the Reasons of their Nonconformity and concludes at last * p. 24. That if in all these Things the Nonconformists are in
Deacons therefore to the intent these Orders should be continued and reverently used and esteemed in the Church of England it is requisite that no Man shall execute any of them excep the be called tryed examined and admitted according to the Form hereafter following and I hope it is evident from that form that a Bishop is necessary to Ordination He goes on and affirms That the French Belgick and Helvetick Churches besides many others are of his Judgment All the other Protestant Churches excepting only Geneva have Episoopal Government and that they allow Ordination by Presbyters in opposition to it is an Assertion that may well be thought incredible till it be sufficiently proved and as for the Churches he mentions their Divines account the Non-Conformists Ordinations Schismatical and the best defence of their own is necessity But he needs not name the Church of Scotland for Scotland says he hath justified all our Non-Conformity By Scotland he means the Presbyterian party of that Kingdom * See the Letters about the Persecution Scotland p. 58. the lesser part for the whole but however if Scotland justifies them it is the only Church in the world that do so Lastly He adds our Diocesan Bishops may glory over us as the Kings Bishops or Bishops of the State which is just the Raillery of the Papists Parliament Bishops and Nags-head Bishops But are our Bishops ordained by the King and State are they not Christ's Bishops and Scripture Bishops No for this new Apostle of Patmos does Peremptorily tell them that they must not pretend to be so near in Blood to the Scripture Bishops of the first Two hundred years as the Pastors of single Congregations But with Submission to his Apostleship I reply that the * Jus Divin Minis Aug. 71. Presbyterian Assembly have granted that Timothy and Titus had super out Authority over Presbyters and therefore our Bishops having the same Authority may pretend to Kindred with them 2. * Ibid. p. 140. They acknowledge also after Blondel that above 140 years after Christ Bishops were set over Presbyters so that they grant them to be introduced within 40 or 50 years after the decease of all the Apostles 3. The Epistles of Ignatius who was Contemporary with the Apostles and suffered Martyrdom within nine years after the decease of St. John do manifestly shew that the superiour Authority of Bishops was then established in the Church and therefore certainly by Apostolical Institution And the Authority of these Epistles has been so demonstratively cleared from all Exceptions by Bishop Pearson that there is now no Contreversie about it 4. Mr. Chillingworth at the end of his Book has plainly demonstrated the Apostolical Institution of Episcopacy and he Sums up his Demonstration in these Words Episcopal Government is acknowledged to have been received universally in the Church presently after the Apostles times Between the Apostles times and this presently after there was not time enough for nor possibility of so great an Alteration And therefore there was no such Alterat on as is pretended And therefore Episcopacy being * By Peter du Moulin Beza Chamier Nic. vedetius whom he cites as Confessing it confessed to be so Antient and Catholick must be granted also to be Apostolick Quod erat Demonstrandum And I hope this Minister will condescend to answer this Demonstration when he writes again or however be so modest as not to conclude so confidently when he has proved nothing But behold the Chair of Infallibility Wherefore I say that Ordination by the hands of the Pastors of Churches filled with the Holy Ghost is much more elegible than by Diocesan Bishops a very peremptory Decree but we must not question it for Pythagoras hath said so yet thus much I presume to Answer that Diocesan Bishops are filled with the Holy Ghost as well as parochal Pastors and that Schismaticks have no Title to it We come now to his Third Reason of Non-Conformity the Declaration of Assent and Consent required in the Act of Vniformity to the Book of Common-Prayes And 〈◊〉 He can't Assent to that passage in the Athanasian Creed where it is said that every one that doth not keep that Faith whole shall without doubt perish Everlastingly Now it is certain the Athanasian Creed is entirely * The Judgment of Foreign Reformed Churches p. 32 33. received and approved by all the protestant Churches in the World excepting only the Antitrinitarians as hath been lately observed and therefore this Minister is herein a Non-Conformist to all Protestant Churches as well as to the Church of England and they are all Condemned together as practising a point of Popery in damning all that differ from them Let us see now the Reason upon which all Protestant Churches are condemned by him One Article says he of that Creed is about the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father and the Son which the Greek Churches did not believe nor receive and supposing them in an Error he adds I must be very bold if I leap into the Throne of Judgment and pronounce them damned I am as much afraid as he is of invading Christ's Tribunal and pronouncing any one damned much more a whole Church and such a Church as comprehends so many Millions of Christians But 1. The Differences between the Greek and Latine Church about the Article of Procession is by Mr. Field of the Church lib. 3. c. 1. Loads Conf. p. 16. Pearson on the Creed p. 324. Learned men affirmed to be only verbal because the Greeks acknowledged under another Scripture Expression in the same thing which the Latines understand by Procession viz. that the Spirit is of or from the Son as he is of and from the Father That as the Son is God of God by being of the Father so the Holy Ghost is God of God by being of the Father and the Son as receiving that infinite and eternal Essence from them both Thus Bishop Pearson upon the Article and if so it be then there is no difference about the Doctrine it self but only about the word Procession But says this Minister The Procession of the Holy 〈◊〉 Ghost is a most profound Mystery and very much obscured by bringing in word Procession and is not this a most profound Objection Is it not rather profound Non Sense to say that the Procession is obscured by the word Procession And how does the expressing that Mystery by Procession any more obscure it than the infinite Duration of God is obscured by calling it Eternity But the Scripture on that occasion never uses the word In relation to the Father it is used * John 15.26 expresly and in Relation to the Son it is contained virtually in Scripture where the Holy Ghost is often said to be the Spirit of the Son and that is all which is understood by proceeding from him and if no words are to be admitted that are not found in Scripture the old-Subtersuge of the Arrians we
must not only exterminate Homoonsios Procession and eternal Generation but we must burn all our Bibles except the Greek and Hebrew because they are not properly the Word of God but Words that signifie by the Agreement of Men and if the original Words of Scripture may be Translated by Words of humane Institution why may not a Doctrine of Scripture be so expressed also Secondly as many of the Roman Church have absolved the Greeks from damnable Error in this Point so it is notorious that the Writers of our Church have always vindicated them from it and therefore it cannot be imagined that our Church in this Creed should pronounce them damn'd and it must be manifest injustice to put such Interpretations upon the Creeds of a Church as have heen ever disclaimed by the chiefest Writers of it Thirdly These damnatory Clauses must be understood to refer only to the Belief of the Doctrines contained in the Creed and not to every particular Word and Expression in it The great Fundamental Doctrine which in this Creel is called the Catholick Faith is this That we worship one God in Trinity and Trinity in Vnity and of this Faith it is declared That they who keep it not shall perish everlastingly And they who believe this viz. That the Father Son and Holy Ghost are Three Persons and me God do believe all that follows in the Creed which contains nothing but what is Essential to the Unity and Distinction of the Three Persons and therefore however they who believe the Trinity may scruple some Words and Expressions in this Creed or understand nothing of them yet as long as they believe the Doctrines they are not included in the Sentence of perishing everlastingly Faith belongs not unto Words but Things and though no one shall be damn'd for a Word yet it is no uncharitableness to say after our Saviour that he who believeth not shall be damn'd neither is it any Popery to conclude that if the Belief of the Trinity be necessary to Baptism it is necessary to Salvation and if this Minister be of another mind let him answer the Arguments that have been * Dr. Sher. Vindication of the Doctrine of the Trinity lately urged for the necessity of that Belief and let him also satisfie the World if he can why the Athanasian Creed which the Presbyterians appointed to be read in Churches in their Directory drawn up at the Savoy an 1661 should be afterwards a Reason of their Nonconformity But he goes on with his Scruples about the Matter of Consent and declines to speak of the Ceremonies the Cross the Surplice and behold the Reason because all know they came from Rome and when Rome falls they will fall too This is an Art full of Venome to traduce by odious Insinuations that which cannot be opposed by just Objections It appears from * Orig. in Ps 38. Hom. 2. Origen and others that the Cross in Baptism and from †See Hooker lib. 5. rect 29. S. Chrysostome and S. Jerome that such a Garment as the Surplice were of Ancient Usage their Antiquity is far enough beyond Popery and they come no more from Rome than do our Creeds and our Bibles and if this Minister hath had a Revelation in his Patmos that they shall fall with Rome we are foretold that in the last Times false Prophets shall arise and must not take his Dream for Vision Next en passant he upbraids us with our praying for King James a profest Papist that he might persevere in the Faith but there is no such Prayer in our Liturgy and if there were seeing the Papists are Christians and believe all that is necessary to Salvation for I hope he will not leap into the Throne of Judgement and pronounce them damn'd why may we not pray for their Perseverance in the Faith not the Faith of a Papist but the Faith of a Christian that will suffice to save them And now after these little Skirmishes we enter into the Battel and must encounter the Reasons which he has mustered up against reading the imposed Form of Common Prayer And here pray judge between the Church of England and the Nonconformists First he affirms that during the Apostles Times and two or three Hundred Years after there was no Liturgy used nor imposed neither did they direct for the drawing up of any and inforcing it by Penal Laws Here are many things jumbled together which must be separated Penal Laws imposing set Forms Directions for them by the Apostles and the Primitive use of them As for Penal Laws the Presbyterians themselves allow them and their Directory is as accountable for them as our Liturgy imposing to be considered hereafter and as to Directions for composing Forms out of many that are urged I shall select these three Considerations 1. Seeing there is convincing * See Dr. Flammond's View of the Directory Selden on Eutichyus p. 83. Dr. Lightfoot Vol. 2. p. 158. and Dr. Comber's Scholastical History p. 3. the Examiner of Dr. Combet p. 4. does question the Solidity of their Proofs but yet declines to undertake them Evidence that the Jewish Church had a fixed Liturgy and therefore both our Saviour and his Apostles who frequented their Synagogues did certainly joyn in it and not one Iota is to be found in the Gospel that condemns it from this Silence and that Practice we may certainly conclude that the use of fixed Liturgies is lawful that the joyning in them is warranted by their Example and that separation from a Church upon that account is absolutely unlawful 2. Our Saviour himself composed a Form of Prayer for his Disciples and in so doing hath * See M. Mede on Matt. 6 9. commended a set Form of Prayer unto His Church He enjoyn'd them when they prayed to say Our Father c. which is as plain a Prescription of a Form as any Words can express It is †Clarkson 's Disc conc Liturgies p. 3. confessed that this Form was anciently used in the Church and this Primitive Use may be very reasonably ascribed to that Prescription especially when we have so plain a Testimony as that of * Tert. de Orat. ca. 1. Tertullian Novis Discipulis Christus novam Orationis Formam determinavit i. e. Christ hath prescribed a new Form of Prayer to his new Disciples And therefore from the Institution nay from the Use of that Prayer which is confessedly ancient we may certainly conclude that a Form of Prayer is lawful in it self that it is useful and edifying that a Prayor is not therefore unlawful or inexpedient because it is a Form and that the Prescription or Use of a Form in a Church will not justifie separation from it 3. All the Directions which our Saviour or His Apostles have given for the Performance of the Duty of Prayer may be apply'd to Forms of Prayer suppose a Prayer to be exactly composed according to those Directions may not such a Prayer
be frequently used Does it cease to be made according to those Directions if it becomes a Form Is a good Prayer spoyled by using it often And can the same Prayer be agreeable and not agreeable to Scripture though it is not altered The Spirit has given Directions for Prayer and those are equally applicable to Prayers composed by private Men and to those that are made for the use of a Church by the Governors of it he hath given no Direction that private or extemporate Prayer should be only used in the Church The Rules are general and if the Apostles have not directed the drawing up Forms they have left no Directions for any Prayer at all seeing every Prayer either is or may be a Form Lastly As to the Use of Liturgies in the first Ages of the Church he affirms That it hath been abundantly cleared by those that have laboured in this Controversie that the Pastors of Churches in the Primitive Times did not read Prayers Those Labourers he refers to are only Mr. Clarkson for out of his Discourse of Liturgies he has extracted his Objections and they are all answered already in Dr. Comber's Scholastical History but because he has rallied up some few of them to defend his Nonconformity it is necessary to oppose the same Answers to them He says it is abundantly cleared that the Primitive Pastors did not read Prayers Mr. Clarkson indeed affirms that no such Phrase is to be met with in any Writers of the Four of five first Ages at least And to this it is replyed * Dr. Comber 's Schol. Hist pt 2d p. 206 c. that no such Phrase as extempore Prayer nor any thing Equivalent can be produced in that time that if written Forms of Prayer be clearly proved in those Ages such positive Evidence cannot be overthrown by a negative Argument and the want of a Phrase will not prove that any thing that was not which is proved to have been That Mr. Clarkson himself hath found written Forms within that time and that it is certain that the Jews had written Forms and yet the reading them is is no where mentioned in Scripture The Minister proceeds and urges that Act. 12.5 the Prayer for Peter's Enlargement was 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 instant forvent without ceasing but not by any Form as is agreed on all sides as if Prayer by a Form could not be instant and servent but the antient Church were of another opinion when the Litany was commonly expressed by * See Dr. Comber on the Litany 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that is earnest or servent Supplications However tho it be granted that no set Form was used on such an extraordinary occasion does it follow that none was therefore used in the ordinary Prayers of the Church Or suppose that no Forms were used when the Church had the extraordinary Assistance of the Holy Ghost to direct their Prayer does it follow that no Forms are to be used when that Assistance is long since ceased if it does then it follows also that studying Languages is now unlawful because the Apostles were taught them by Inspiration and that no Preacher ought to predmeditate or write his Sermons because we never read that the Apostles did so But the next Objection he thinks to be demonstrative some says he have been so curious as to observe that in the Primitive times the Saints usually prayed with their Eyes fixed on the Mercy-Seat or closed which utterly disables Persons from reading Prayers Mr. * On Psal 132.7 Mede has proved that the Jews worshiped towards the Ark whose cover was the Mercy Seat and that the ancient Christians worshiped towards the Holy Table or Altar which Answers to the Mercy Seat in the Jewish Temple but whether their Eyes were fixed or closed is a moot Point to me and I have not the Curiosity to make a research in to it Mr. Clarkson Labours to prove that they lift up their Eyes towards Heaven but however they disposed of their Eyes I hope the officiating Minister might nevertheless read Prayers to them In out own Assemblies some devout Persons may be seen with their Eyes closed others looking towards the Altar and others towards Heaven and even the Minister himself does often lift up his Eyes in Prayer but I hope all this is no Argument that we have no Liturgy in our Church and that they who scruple its use do scruple nothing and if it is no Argument now it never was one 2. We come next to his Second Class of Reasons which he thus begins The Pastors of Churches in the Primitive times were under the teaching of the Anointing and had the Spirit and Gift of Prayer Suppose we this to be true that they were taught to pray by the Unction of the Spirit was this Unction extraordinary as the Gifts of Languages Prophecying and Miracles or was it an ordinary standing Gift which was to continue in the Church unto the end of the World If he means the former to what purpose does he urge a Gift which no one now can justly pretend to if the later why did he not explain the Nature of it and shew the Promise the extent and the necessity of it and withal answer the Arguments * Dr. Falkners Libertus Eccles his Vindication of Liturgies and the Cases Conc. the Lawfulness of joyning with Forms of Prayer part 1. that have been urg'd against these Pretences But whatever he means by this Gift of Prayer he would prove the use of it from Justin Martyr and Tertullian the * Justius Apol. 2. p. 98. 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 in the former he says is Vindicated beyond all Exceptian The Objectors understand by that Phrase that the chief Minister used his own Abilities in composing a Prayer But * Libeâ—tas Eccles p. 113. c. Schol. Hist p. 33. part 1. others think that it signifies his praying with all his might i. e. with the utmost intention and fervency of Spirit They explain this Phrase by another of the same Author used a little before it where he says that they made their common Prayers to God 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 i. e. fervently and importunately They further prove that the same Expression in another place of Justin where he represents the Christians in general as praising God with Prayers and Thanksgivings 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 must signifie only fervency of Devotion since it cannot be pretended that every Christian in the Congregation prayed publickly by his own Ability and Composure and lastly they shew that this Phrase is by the antient Writers applied to singing of Hymns which were set Forms of Prayers and Praises and not Composed at every meeting by the Minister and these are plain Demonstrations that this Expression is no Proof of any Gift in praying since it often signifies only fervency in it The P. 24. Examiner of Dr. Comber labours much to vindicate this Phrase and he cannot deny that it sometimes
cannot make the Communion of such a Church sinful nor justifie Separation and hence any one may discern how impertinent to this purpose are all this Ministers Clamours about Reformation for though the pursuit of it may be commeadable and the Church may need it yet it is evident his Nonconformity and Separation cannot be justified by it for there is no Church upon Earth which needs not Reformation and if Men may separate where they see any thing amiss this Principle will carry them to a Separation from all Christian-Society and that is a plain Demonstration of the Faishood of it I have now considered and weigh'd all his Pleas for Nonconformity and having found them light and deceitful in the Ballance having sufficiently prov'd them to be false and fallacious I conclude that the Nonconformists were not persecuted for Righteousness sake and that his * P. 24. virulent Reproaches of the Church of England in Prophetick Language are no better than Blasphemy and a contumelious Prophanation of Gods word by making it the Instrument of his Spite and Animosity And one Ressection more will make it yet more evident that they did not suffer for Righteousness it is this that tho his Pleas be allowed to have Truth and Reason in them yet they will not justifie the Dissenters Separation Every one knows that these Ministers were not punished for not conforming as Ministers but for setting up Conventicles tho they could not Act as publick Ministers yet they might have adher'd to the Communion of the Church and then they would have been in no danger of Persecution they suffered for their Separation and if all this Ministers Objections will not justifie it they will not justifie their Sufferings for it The Plea of Reformation I have shewn already to be insufficient and it is evident that Lay Dissenters are unconcerned in all the others they were neither ablig'd to renounce the Covenant nor the Lawfulness of Resistance nor the Ordination of Presbyters nor to declare their Assent and Consent to the Common-prayer and this Minister himself denies not the Lawfulness of their joyning in it Thus he hath left all his Congregation without any defence and it remains that they suffered not for Righteousness but for an unrighteous and indefensible Separation Let us see whether the same Objections will justifie his own Separation Suppose the Oath of Non-resistance to be unlawful was that a term of our Communion was it required of all that come to our Prayers or Sacraments and might he not have adhered to the Communion of our Church without swearing or declaring it be it granted next that Reordination is unlawful to be comply'd with was that likewise any term of Communion in Worship and Sacraments And if they could not Preach as Ministers could they not Communicate as Laymen and is the unlawful silencing of a Minister to be revenged with Schisin The next point is the use of the Liturgy and is there any thing unlawful in all our Prayers if he cannot Consent to some Passages in the Rubrick or in a Creed that is very Seldom recited yet there is nothing sinful in our ordinary Worship and the occasional Communion allow'd by the Presbyterians themselves is a clear Confession of it And Lastly as to the Covenant if it must not be renounced cannot they worship God in our Churches without renouncing it or does it at all oblige them to Separation Mr. * Defence of Cure p. 68. Baxter has prov'd that the Covenant binds them to Communion with our Church because it binds to Reformation according to the Example of the best reformed Churches but all reformed Churches in Christendom do commonly profess to hold Communion with the English Churches in the Liturgy if they come amongst us where it is used therefore says he it seems to me to be Perjury and Covenant breaking to refuse Communion with the Churches that use the Liturgy as a thing meerly on that Account unlawful Thus Mr. Baxter and these Concessions are very remarkable that Separation on the Account of our Liturgy is unlawful that it is a breach of their Covenant and is condemned by all Reformed Churches and what new Pleas can this Minister produce to defend his Separation Will he urge the Pretence of necessity to Preach the Gospel and that therefore he was forced to separate because he could not do it in our Churches But if he was under the same necessity the Apostle was then he has surely the Commission and Authority of an Apostle but if he hath no Commission from God let me use the words of an antient * Mr. Giffard cited in the Vnreasonableness of Separ p. 80. Nonconformist it is the Devil that hath sent him forward to Preach against the Authority of the Church and the Prohibition of the Christian Magistrate In short they have neither the same Commission as the Apostles neither is there the same necessity of their Preaching for the Gospel is now planted in this Kingdom it is Preached in our Churches and it would not be extinguished if this Minister and his Brethren to use his own Seraphical Expressions were all them Dumb Dogs or Breasts without Milk or Bells without Clappers And withal it is here to be observed that it is evidently proved * Ibid p. 1. sect 8 9 10 11 17. that according to the Doctrine of the most learned Nonconformists of former times both their Separating and their Preaching are absolutely unlawful The Sum of all is this the Laws against the Dissenters were made for the security of the Church and State the Execution of them was not so cruel as is pretended their persecuting of the Government did extort it the Presbyterians themselves have always condemned Toleration they do ever persecute whenever they have Power this Minister declaims only against Persecution for the Truth but all his Pretences to Truth appear to be false and groundless and if they were admitted would not justifie Separation and therefore the result is this That his Call to Humiliation is an unreasonable Clamour and that it ought to have been directed to the Presbyterians themselves and especially to their Ministers who have been the most grievous Persecutors who have crubified Christ Jesus by dividing hith have torn his Body into pieces have separated from the whole Catholick Church under pretence of Reforming the Reformed Religion have Reproached and weaken'd it have been always undermining that Church which is the Bulwark of it have bound themselves by impious Oaths and very lately ebtred into an Alliance with the Papists to destroy it And lastly have suffered obstinately for an Unrighteous Chuse condemned by Reason and Revelation by the Universal Church of all Ages and by all the Reformed Churches in the World Having now Answer'd the whole Design if this Pamphlet and all that looks like Argument in it it would be superfluous to examine the Remainder and to reflect particularly on his malicious Hints and Intimations his Cant and Shtyr his abuse of Scripture his Uses and his Prayers which he Recommends to his People and wherein he Feaches them that Vile and Divilish Practice of turning Prayers into Libels and instructs them to Pray much worse than the Pharisee to commend themselves to God †See p. 27. As followers of the Lamb and the Lords Anointed and to accuse the Church-men before him as Dumb Dogs and Wolves and bloudy Persecutors Thus do they fill up the measure of their Fathers who sin their Prayers taught the People to Speak evil of Dignities and to Curse the best of Kings as a Bloudy Persecuting obdurate Tyrant Yet I cannot but take notice of his insolent Triumph for the Establishment of Presbytery in Scotland Now says he is fulfilled that which was spoken by the Prophet The Land of Zebulun c. The People which sate in Darkness saw great Light and to them which sat in the Region and Shadow of Death Light is sprung up And was this Prophecy never fulfilled till now It Presbytery the Messias whose Light is there foretold Did Nailor himself ever utter more Abominable Blasphemy Has the Virgin Daughter of Scotland proclaim'd a new Gospel which was not Preach'd before Is it the Evangelium Armatum or the Gospel of Xaverius or of the Whore of Babylon Hither to I thought that Episcopal Churches might have the Light of the Gospel but a new Light hath now discovered that they are all in Darkness and that all Christian Churches for 1500 Years together have been in the Regions of Death without Christ without the Light of the Gospel and consequently without Salvation One thing more I must observe that the Sermons and Writings of these Ministers do make it as clear as the Sun that all the projects of Vnïon with that Party are absolutely impracticable The Presbyterians are the only Dissenters that are thought capable of Comprehension but to take them into our Church we must cast out our Liturgy and our Bishops we must submit our Necks to the Iron Yoke of Presbytery in short we must destroy our Church if we will have an Vnion with them no Alterations will content them they who have they who have not taken the Covenant do think themselves bound to extirpate Prelacy and to Reform according to the model of Scotland they desire no Vnion and despise it when Treaties of Peace are proposed they make themselves ready to Battel their Hostility is Irreconcileable and the total Destruction of our Church is the sum of all their Endeavours and Designs But Oh! That our Lives were as good as our Religion and our Manners pure and primitive as the Constitution of our Church for then would God cover is under his Wings and he that hath deliver'd and doth deliver would still deliver us Our Church we know is Founded on a Rock let us depart from Iniquity and her Foundation shall stand sure and the Gates of Hell shall not prevail against it FINIS
the Peace of the State or Church could permit Such were the Reasons of the Laws and Prosecutions against them in the happy Days of Queen Elizabeth And have not these Observations been since confirm'd by woful Experience Is it any wonder that at the Restoration of our Church and Covernment which had been destroy'd by a most unjustifiable Rebellion when the whole Kingdom had been turn'd into an Aceldama and the best of Kings was barbarously murdered the Law-givers should look back upon the Miseries they had felt and secure the King the Kingdom and the Church against the increase of those Sectaries that had so lately destroy'd them and yet it is notorious that these Laws were never rigorously executed but when necessity requir'd it Their Assemblies were ever tolerated or connived at when themselves were pleased to shew that favour to the Government but when they began to libel associate and plot against the King and it was evident that the ruin of Church and State was again attempted and all the Sectaries were ready to contribute their Strength and Power to effect it was it not then high time for the Government to oppose them to secure it self by the Execution of Laws and to prosecute those who were resolved to ruin it They had Liberty enough till it was made a Cloak of Maliciousness and the Government did never persecute them but when it was persecuted by them How impertinem then is it to clamour at the Church because the State made Laws for its own preservation How unjust to arraign their Governors as Tyrannical because they would not be destroyed and how impious to call suffering for Sedition I ersecution for the Gospel If these Ministers had any regard to the Judgment of St. * Aug. Tom. 2. Epist 48. contra Donat. Rogat devi Corrig Haeret. Augustine it would be to some purpose to ranscribe the essicacious Reasons with which he justifies the use of Temporal Penalties for the reducing of Dissenters but however they may deal with him the agreement of their chief Divines the declar'd Judgment of their infallible Assembly and their own undeniable practice when they had power will be enough to silence and condemn them The Dissenters of late have wearied the World with their outcries against Persecution they have magnified Liberty of Conscience as the Magna Charta of Mankind and cryed it up in their Addresses to K. James as the restoring of God himself to his Empire But nothing in the World that thinks and sees can possibly believe them for their own Writings both past and present do manifestly shew that they never condemn Persecution but when they cannot Persecute It may be prov'd by a vast cloud of witnesses That Toleration has been ever damn'd by the Presbyterians and therefore it unavoidably follows that Persecution has been ever approv'd by them I could make good this by a deduction from their first Apostle Mr. Cartwright to their present Patriarch Mr. Baxter but in a Matter so notorious so much labour is unnecessary I appeal to the Testimonies of * They were these Dr. Burgess Mr. Ward Mr. William Good Mr. Tho. Thorowgood Mr. Humf. Hardwick Arthur Salwey Will. Reynar Geo. Hughes Edm. Calamy Tho. Case John Lightfoot Tho. Watson R. Baxter Tho. Horton Lazarus Serman Matt. Newcomen Richard Vines Simeon Ash James Crauford Tho. Edwards Twenty of their most eminent Preachers who in the Reign of Presbytery did in their Sermons and Writings with great Zeal inveigh against Toleration as unlawful in it self and destructive unto Church and State I refer you likewise to a very pathetical Letter to the Assembly Subscribed by all the London Divines Ann. 16â—5 wherein they expresly Declare their abhorrence of Toleration and exhort the Assembly to allow no Liberty to the Independants as being notorious Schis maticks and both this Letter and that collection of Tostimonies are to be found in a Pamphlet Entituled Toleration disprov'd which was Printed at Oxford Ann. 1670. But hear the Divines of that Assembly it self expostulating with their Dissenting Brethren the Independants * Papers of Accommodation cited by Dr. Still in his Sermon about the mischief of Separation p. 41 42. They desire an Answer to this one thing Whether some must be denied Liberty of their Conscience in matter of Practice ctice or none If none then say they we must renounce our Covenant and let in Prelacp again and all other ways If a denial of Liberty unto some may be just then Vniformity may be selted without any Tyranny They charge them farther with * Cited out of the same Papers in his unreasonableness of Speararation p. 69. opening a gap for all Sects to challenge such a Liberty as their due And add That this Liberty was denied by the Churches of New England and they have as just grounds to deny it as tdey Thus we see that not the Presbyterians only but even the new Light of Independancy is against Toleration and that persecution of Dissenters was not only their Doctrine but their Vow and Covenant also In that Covenant they Swore to extirpate Prelacy and to endeavour after Vniformity in Doctrine Discipline and Worship and is it not a wonderful Confidence in this Minister to Arraign the Church for persecuting and at the same time to contend for the obligation of a persecuting Covenant to reckon Vniformity among the accursed Stuff and then Declare that they are bound by Oath to settle it But their practice at last is the clearest demonstration of their Doctrine Behold an * An Ordinance for putting in execution the Directory August 11. 1645. Ordinance of Parliament against the use of the Liturgy If any person hereafter shall at any time use or cause to be used the Book of Common Prayer in any Church or Publick place of Worship or in any Private place or Family within the Kingdom every person so offending for the first offence shall pay the sum of Five for the Second Ten pounds and for the Third shall suffer One whole years imprisonment without Bail or Mainprize Do any of our Laws forbid the dissenters to serve God in their own Families as they please or where is there such an abridgment of Liberty in our Statute Book But yet their proceedings were much more cruel than their Ordinances so far were they from allowing any indulgence to the Church of England that they would not allow Liberty of Conscience to the Supreme Head and Governor of it They refused to permit their King the use of the Common Prayer in his own Chappel and infisted to obtrude the Directory upon him against his Conscience so that he had reason to complain as he did Decl. of Jun. 18. after the Votes of Nun-Addresses of their offering violence to the Conscience of their Sovereign and to say If it be Liberty of Conscience they desire he who wants it is most ready to give it Nay those Prosbyterians when they had him in their custody were
them to take it tho they were morally certain they did not understand it And Lastly why is not this Objection now considered by the Virgin Daughter of Scotland as he Phrases it There they force the Clergy to swear that W. and M. are lawful King and Queen by Laws of that Kingdom and is this reasonable when they are utterly unacquainted with those Laws and many Learned Preachers have never read the Civil not Statute Law nor Craig nor Skine nor the Original Contract but it is always to be observed that the Presbyterians never do condemn what they do not practice 2. The Substance of his next Reason is this That the Covenant was taken by the People of Two or three Kingdoms and a man had need be a good Casuist that can declare understandingly that no one man is bound by that Oath which almost every man took Now I believe this Covenant was not taken by the Majority of these Kingdoms in England I am sure it was generally refused by the Clergy the Universities and the greatest part of the Nobility and Gentry But admit the Majority took it the force of his Reason depends upon this Proposition That an Oath taken by a vast munitude must needs be Obligatory and is it necessary to read all the Casnistical Books of Divinity to confute so manifest a Falshood in Popish Countries many Millions do take Monastick Vows and all the Clergy swear obedience to the Pope and may not an ordinary Casuist declare understandingly that none of them are bound by those Vows and Oaths which all of them have taken The Holy League in France was sworn by more than the Solemn League in England was it therefore Obligatory and is it not a sufficient Humiliation to which this Minister has called me to be bound to answer such Absurdities 3. He urges that by the Covenant all Persons were bound in their places to endeavour a Reformation of the Church according to the Scriptures and the Examples of the best reformed Churches and he asks is this an unlawful Oath I answer the Question is deceitful a man hinds himself by Oath to serve God and the Devil and he asks is it not lawful to serve God is this an unlawful Oath Thus the Covenanters did swear to endeavour Reformation Art 1. and to extirpate Episcopacy Art 2. But this Minister mentions Reformation only and then impertinently demands is this Oath unlawful I am ready to maintain against him that an Oath to serve the Devil is not more unlawful than an Oath to destroy Episcopacy and that upon this ground because it is of Apostolical Institution There are many other things unlawful in that Covenant as any one may be satisfied by the unanswerable Reasons of the University of Oxford against it and therefore if this Minister will prove it lawful let him justifie it throughout and not fly to such Methods as may serve to justifie the most execrable Oaths that can be by producing one single Passage that may seem justifiable in them But thus he proceeds If a man should swear that in his Place and Calling he would endeavour to cast every Idol out of the World and what is the consequence of this terrible If Why truly nothing at all but he filly adds that in Scotland they have cast off Prelacy and established Presbytery i. e. they have cast out the Idol and set up the true God among them but if this be his meaning that Episcopacy is Idolatry I account of him as one of the incurable Fanatical Roul that call every thing Idol or Antichrist that displeases them and I am not obliged to answer Bigotry and Frenzy The last Point he insists on is a Passage out of the Commination Office in the Liturgy wherein the Church declares her Desire that the Godly Discipline used in the Primitive Church may be again restored and says it is much to be wished for It is wonderful to consider what work he makes with this Passage but I am willing to believe he never read it in the Liturgy It was long since an old conceit of the Nonconformists * Vid. Hooker p. 331. that the Primitive Discipline which was so much wished for by the Compilers of our Liturgy was the Presbyterian Discipline and from them I presume he borrowed the Objection But in the Liturgy it self there is no Foundation for it as will appear from a view of the Passage it self in the Preface to the Commination Brethren in the Primitive Church there was a Godly Discipline that at the beginning of Lent such Persons as stood convicted of Notorious Sins were put to open Penance and punished in this World In stead whereof until the said Discipline may be restored again which is much to be wished for it is thought good c. and is Presbytery the Discipline here desired undoubtedly as much as Popery or Mahumetanism It not that Discipline expresly declared to be the Discipline of publick Penance which in the ancient Church was inflicted upon such as stood convicted of Notorious Sins at the beginning of Lent in order to their Absolution and Admission to the Holy Sacrament at Easter What can be more express and evident than that the Ancient Leut Discipline is there alone intended And have the Non conformists as he pretends ever written for preached for and suffered for the Restoration of this Discipline Have they ever wish'd or desired it Have they not always written and preach'd against it Do they not still exclaim at it as Popery and Superstition But this Minister pronounces considently that this Expression stands in the Liturgy as well for the Justification of the Nonconformists as for a Testimony against the Prelates Thus the Godly Discipline is a Condemnation to them who have always desired it and Justification to them who have always opposed it and if Nonconformists must needs be justified by Blunder and Contradiction this Minister I confess is a fit Apologist for them But behold the Reflections he makes on this Passage First The Reformers and Compilers of this Book of Common Prayer had no full Satisfaction with what was then done What Were they not fully satisfied with the Liturgy The first Liturgy of Edward the 6th was applauded by the whole * 2 3 Ed. 6. c. 1. Parliament as composed by the Special Aid of the Holy Ghost and * Acts and Monuments Tom. 3. p. 171. Doctor Taylor the Martyr publickly declared that the whole Church-Service in King Edward's Second Liturgy was so fully perfected according to the Rules of our Christian Religion that no Christian Conscience could be offended with any thing therein contained The Papists were the only Persons in those Times that were dissatisfied with it and therefore in Queen Mary's days a Challenge was made by * Ibid. Tom. 3. p. 18. Cranmer that with P. Martyr and four or five more they would enter the Lists with any Papists living and defend the Common Prayer Book to be perfectly agreeable
to the Word of God and the same in effect which had been for 1500 Years in the Church of Christ and let any one now consider whether our first Reformers were not fully satisfied with the Liturgy But he adds they ingenuously confess they came short of the Primitive Discipline and that the Reformation should have been carried on higher if the Times would have given leave They confess they could not revive the ancient Discipline of Lent and they desired a higher Conformity to the Primitive Church not in relation to the Hierarchy and Liturgy but in the strictness of Mens Lives and the impartial severity of publick Penance Yet says he they had then their Government by Bishops Archbishops Chancellors Archdeacons c. as we have at this day They had so and were fully satisfied with it and there were no Protestants in that Age that separated from it Archdeacon Philpot Archbishop Cranmer and several Bishops our first Reformers and Martyrs approved that Government and lived and died in the Administration of it they did not permit it only as Moses did Divorces to the Jews because of the hardness of their Hearts as this Minister does falsely insinuate but they never intimated the least Suspition of its unlawfulness and they plainly * Preface to the Book of Ordin 〈◊〉 declared Episcopacy to be evidently founded upon Scripture and Apostolical Institution But these Reformers and Martyrs were ignorant of those things which are now known unto Women and Artificers poor Men they were under a dispensation of Darkness and the Gospel-Light of Separation was totally hidden from them Secondly he observes That it is more than 1â—00 Years since these good Men recorded their Desires of Restoring the said Discipline and is it enough say he that the Church carries her good Wishes with her through all Generations Enough certainly while the Restoring that Discipline is impossible Our first Reformers could not revive it because the universal and incorrigible Wickedness of that Age could not endure the Yoke of Primitive Penance and are scandalous Offenders now less numerous or loss incorrigible If the Reformers are excusable much more our present Governors by how much the present Age is more untractable and more obstinate against the Bands of Discipline Is it possible now to reduce Offenders to the Primitive Humiliations the Fastings and Watchings the Sackcloth and Ashes the Prostration at the Church Doors and the other Austerities of Ancient Penance Will any of the Dissenter's submit to this Discipline as a satisfaction for their Schism If such an impracticable Discipline were imposed these Ministers would presently cry out Popery encourage all Offenders to oppose it and set open the Doors of their Conventicles to receive them such an Imposition would be vain and pernicious it would scandalize the weak and alienate the obstinate and serve only to empty our Churches and crowd the Conventicles and though for that reason they may desire it yet the Church is not obliged to prescribe a Remedy that will make the Physician contemptible and the Patient incurable The restoring of that Salutary Discipline as the reviving of Primitive Piety may be always wish'd for but perhaps will never be attained but the licentious Wickedness of the present Times the general Contempt of all the Censure of the Church and the manifold Schisms with which it is rent in pieces do make it now impossible and if it were established it is not to be hoped that the obstinacy of the Dissenters would be subdued nor their Aversion to the Church be reconciled by it I intend not to follow this Minister through his tedious Digression about Reformation and much less to ramble with him as far as the Temple at Jerusalem to which forsaking his Text and his Purpose he undertakes a Pilgrimage and returns with these wise Observations * P. 22 23. That the Temple was built upon Ornan 's Barn that this Ornan was of Princely descent because he had a Princely Mind and that Temple-Work is hard Work 't is Threshing Thus after a long Journey he brings back nothing but Apes and Peacocks as himself observes of some who ramble into the Indies These are the Saving Doctrines for which this Thresher is admitted by his Hearers and since a Barn is his Delight may he never Thresh in the Houses of GOD nor profane those Sanctuaries that are consecrated to his Worship But I return to Reformation and in Answer to his Harrangue about it I desire it may be remembred 1. That this Minister does not seek the same Reformation which was sought by Christ and his Apostles for Presbytery is not the Gospel neither is Extirpation of Bishops the Propagation of Christianity 2 Reformation is very good in it self and the Churchmen are for it much more than the Dissenters but they cannot be convinced that the removing Decency Order and an Apostolical Government is Reformation they know that this is the usual Vizard to disguise Sacrilege Avarice and Ambition and that the Sectaries endeavour not to reform the Church but to destroy it that they may seize on its Inheritance and withall they cannot but reflect upon the experience which we have had of Sectarian Reformation when Prelatical Government was reformed into no Government and a sober Liturgy into Enthusiasm and 39 Articles into infinite Heresies that could scarce be parallell'd in all the ancient Catalogues and in stead of the Power of Godliness there ensued such an Inundation of Wickedness as no Age could parallel This was observed by the * For instance by Edwards in his Gangraina Presbyterians themselves and an ingenious Foreigner who then resided at London made this Observation upon those Times * A Letter of a Noble Venetian to Ca. Barbarino Translated and Printed 1648. p. 19. one of the Fruits says he of this Blessed Parliament and of these two Sectaries Presbyterians and Independants is that they have made more Atheists than I think there are in all Europe besides and if we judge of the Tree by its Fruits and desire to see no more such Reformations have they reason to blame us for it 3. It should be considered that no pretence of Reformation can justifie Separation from a Church in which no sinful Terms of Communion are imposed There is no Church in the World which is free from all Corruptions in Doctrine Worship Discipline or Manners and if the want of some Reformation be a just reason for Renouncing Communion the Unity of the Church is nothing but a Notion and it will be lawful for every Man to separate from all the Churches in the World for it is only the Triumphant Church in Heaven which is perfectly without spot and blemish Defect of Discipline and purer Communion were the pretences of the Donatist and Novatian Schisms but they were condemn'd by the Catholick Church and * Aug. con Parmen Epis lib. 2 3. Tom. 7. S. Austin proves at large against the Donatists that Corruption in Discipline or Manners